REQUIREMENT FOR OVERRIDING ORDER

HC Deb 23 March 1999 vol 328 cc226-88

'(1)In the event of the Secretary of State's powers under sections 5 (2), 5 (4), 6 (2), 7 (4b), 7 (4c), 7 (4e), 7 (41), 7 (5c), 9 (5), 10 (2), 10 (3) and 14 of this Act not being exercised in respect of a particular best value authority within any period of three years after the coming into effect of this Act, the powers in this Act shall only be exercised in respect of that authority subject to an overriding order under this section. '(2) No such order shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution, of each House of Parliament. (3) Such an overriding order shall itself expire if at any time a period of 3 years has elapsed during which none of the Secretary of State's powers specified in subsection (1) have been exercised.'.—[Mr. Jenkin.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jenkin

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 83, in clause 13, page 9, line 24, after 'State', insert 'subject to section (Requirement for overriding order) above'.

Mr. Jenkin

The new clause is all-embracing. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who wound up the previous debate and is leaving the Chamber, accused us of being Janus-like in our opposition to the Bill, but more Janus-like is the Labour party's attitude, which produced the Bill in the first place. The expectation, from all the body language and attitude of Labour Members when they were in opposition, was that they would give powers back to local authorities and reverse the trend of centralisation which, we have to admit, occurred under the Conservatives.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

They confess.

Mr. Jenkin

Yes, we confess. There were many constraints upon us that required us to take powers to central Government, but that was never a process that we enjoyed, and I suspect that the Labour party is enjoying that process even less. If ever an expectation were dashed, this is it; the Bill takes 27 new powers for the Secretary of State over the activities, functions and finances of local government.

The whole purpose of the Bill is make improvements in respect of activities undertaken by local authorities. The Labour party promised to abolish compulsory competitive tendering, but the best value powers over the activities of local authorities are more penetrative, more all-embracing and more comprehensive than the relatively limited competitive tendering powers.

The Labour party also promised to abolish what it called crude and universal capping, a phrase that was flourished at Labour party conferences in times gone by to give the impression that Labour was against capping. Attaching the term "crude and universal" to capping, suggested that capping was crude and universal by nature, but we now know that Labour meant that it would abolish one kind of capping and replace it with another.

We could say that the Bill modernises capping, but I do not think that many people are impressed. As for the introduction of council tax benefit subsidy limitation—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and Housing asserts that I am out of order, but Mr. Deputy Speaker is quite capable of making that judgment on his own.

Council tax benefit subsidy limitation is a totally new concept and there was no promise, pledge or even hint of it in the Labour manifesto. In Committee, the Minister said, "Yes, we have extended our manifesto commitment", as though that was likely to be welcomed by local authorities. They bitterly oppose the measure, rather in the same way that the governing party bitterly opposed the housing benefit clawback introduced by the previous Conservative Government.

8 pm

Sir Paul Beresford

My hon. Friend has been too generous to the Government. Universal capping has been brought back, in effect, as council tax benefit clawback. What they have done with the second part is bring in subjective capping in a vicious way; it could be applied extensively, viciously and selectively, even on a purely political basis. We have seen the beginning of a trend. The standard spending assessment has been utilised to redistribute funds—

Mr. Fallon

Manipulated.

Sir Paul Beresford

Or manipulated, as my hon. Friend says. It has been manipulated to shift funds to friends, colleagues or crony councils throughout the country.

Mr. Jenkin

I agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes.

As I said on Second Reading, we approach the Bill from the perspective of an Opposition party that is re-evaluating its policies on local government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been making it clear for more than a year that we are reassessing our view of local government. He said to the Local Government Association conference last year—[Laughter.]

I note that the Minister for Local Government and Housing is laughing, but my right hon. Friend got a better reception at the conference than she did last year, and I bet that she is not looking forward to it this year. He said on that occasion: I am committed to local decision-making and to effective local government. He went on: all of us in this room must think about how we can once more make local democracy vital and effective"— something which the Minister for Local Government and Housing seems to have forgotten about very quickly as she has settled into her comfortable ministerial office. He added As we carry out our thinking our guiding principle will be this: we believe that decisions in our society should be taken as closely as possible to the people affected. If we can achieve more independence and more accountability for local authorities, with all the tough choices and difficult responsibilities that entails, then we should be able to strip away the controls that fetter councils—including capping. I want to be able to trust local government to take serious decisions affecting local people without the risk of heavy-handed intervention from central government. That is the objective of our policy. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

I was struck by some of the reasons that were advanced in favour of capping in Committee. The Minister for Local Government and Housing used two in particular which caused me amusement. She said: We have said consistently that we do not run away from the fact that there is a national interest which—in terms of this country ever being ready to adopt the euro and make those changes—is the amount of its debt. The amount of a country's public borrowing is one of the Maastricht criteria: it is an aspect of the national interest, which is very important. I never thought that I would hear monetary union advanced as an argument for capping local authority expenditure.

The Minister was a little more honest later when she said: The Government have a responsibility to local council tax payers to retain reserve powers to protect them, if necessary—as we promised in our manifesto."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1999; c. 466–69] There is a legitimate reason, perhaps, to maintain controls over local authority taxation, but not perhaps over the overall local authority budgets.

The argument is a constantly developing one. A most interesting paper that was produced by Peter Watt, senior lecturer in economics at the university of Birmingham, advances an argument that perhaps puts local authority spending and, in particular, local authority taxation into perspective. Our amendment seeks—I will come to the detail of it in due course—to set a sunset on the general regulation of local authorities, particularly with regard to capping.

I have no doubt that the argument will be advanced against the amendment—whatever its detail may be—that capping is necessary in the national interest, but Mr. Watt points out that the macroeconomic gain in controlling local authority expenditure is very limited. He points out that council tax is about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should return to the details of the new clause, as he suggested that he might do soon.

Mr. Jenkin

I am advancing the argument, which is implicit in our amendment, that capping will reach the end of its useful life and should be phased out. The amendment provides a mechanism by which capping powers in the Bill will expire. I have no doubt that the Government will advance the case that those capping powers are necessary in perpetuity. I advance the argument that it is possible to run a good economy without necessarily having such close control over a relatively small part of our national expenditure.

Various arguments are advanced: we need a balanced budget; the shift between private and public spending causes inflation. However, the theory is based on the assumption that households do not benefit from local authority services.

Ms Armstrong

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could perhaps tell us which amendment he is speaking to because I think that he is speaking to the next group of amendments.

Mr. Jenkin

I beg the House's pardon. When I said amendment, I meant new clause 5. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting me right.

It is also argued that increased council tax feeds into the retail prices index; the argument was advanced extensively during our period of office. However, rates and now council tax should perhaps not be in the RPI; there is a question as to whether they do have an inflationary effect. Money taken out of council tax feeds directly into the economy in another way. Even if council tax is in the RPI, it is not clear that an increase in—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The new clause relates to best value reviews. The hon. Gentleman should come to the nub of the argument.

Mr. Jenkin

The nub of the argument is that the emphasis that has hitherto been placed on the importance of capping for its macroeconomic effects has been overstated, but I will curtail my comments on that score.

It is important to understand that bitter opposition to the Government's capping powers, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) explained in his intervention, are much wider than the capping powers that the Government inherited, has come from august organisations that otherwise provide much support for the Government. They include the Local Government Association. It also opposes, or has expressed reservations, about the considerable powers in the Bill relating to best value. It also opposes the council tax subsidy limitation, which the new clause seeks to curtail.

The new clause creates circumstances in which the best value review powers, the capping powers and council tax benefit limitation powers will be gradually curtailed. The association says that council tax limitation will hit the poorest areas hardest, and that the guideline increases for council tax benefit limitation could be viewed as a direct substitute for the crude and universal capping that the Labour party says it opposes.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

Am I right in thinking that new clause 5—the sunset new clause—will mean that the provisions with regard to capping will expire after three years? Is that my hon. Friend's suggestion?

Mr. Jenkin

I am making the case for the new clause and then I will explain its detail.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has tried to steer the hon. Gentleman back towards the new clause. I should be grateful if he would deal specifically with the details in the new clause.

Mr. Jenkin

The new clause refers to the requirement for an overriding order. Let me turn to the details. It refers to a number of powers that may be exercised—[Interruption.] I am finding it difficult to concentrate, because the Minister for Local Government and Housing keeps giving advice in a stage whisper.

New clause 5 specifies a number of powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State in the best value process. Its purpose is to specify the powers which, if not exercised within three years of the implementation of the Act, would cause all the powers in the Act—including council tax limitation and capping powers—to expire. [Interruption.] The Minister seems slightly hysterical. Perhaps she should drink a glass of water and lie down for a bit. I am perfectly willing to accept that the drafting of the new clause may be imperfect, but its purpose is clearly to provide for circumstances in which all the powers in the Act would expire.

There is, however, a fallback for the Government. If the Secretary of State needed to use the powers later because a local authority had not performed as it had been expected to and was causing difficulties, they would still be available—subject to an order that would have to be proved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Forth

I hoped that my hon. Friend would specify circumstances in which the Secretary of State's powers might not be exercised in the way described by the new clause. I readily follow the logic behind "in the event of this, that and the other", but I want to know in what circumstances my hon. Friend imagines the wording of the new clause would be invoked.

For what it is worth, I have always assumed that the Secretary of State would be anxious to use the new powers in the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend said earlier that there were 28, but no doubt more will come. The new clause, however, suggests that the Secretary of State may not use those powers. I find that intriguing: in what circumstances might the Secretary of State not use them?

Mr. Jenkin

My right hon. Friend has asked a key question. We were constantly assured that the reserve powers in clause 14 would be fallback powers, to be used only in extremis, and that the very existence of the best value process would cause sweetness and light to break out in local authorities, so that the Secretary of State would not be required to intervene. It is possible that the drafting is too broad in respect of some of the powers specified in the new clause, but the key point is this: when an authority is essentially well behaved and is applying the principles of best value through self-discipline in conjunction with the monitoring of the Audit Commission, surely it is entirely reasonable for the other powers that the Secretary of State has over the local authority to expire, returning to the authority the powers that we want authorities to have.

I remind the House that the objective of the time-limiting of capping powers was discussed in Committee. Indeed, I believe that a member of the Minister's party tabled an amendment proposing that the capping powers should expire in 2005.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The debate is not about capping powers. The hon. Gentleman must refer specifically to new clause 5.

Mr. Jenkin

I may be under a misapprehension in regard to the drafting of my own new clause, but it states that, in the event of the powers in the first part of the Bill's not being exercised, the powers in this Act shall only be exercised subject to an overriding order. That is intended to include capping powers and council tax limitation powers in the whole Act. To that extent, this is about providing sunsetting for capping powers, council tax limitation powers and all the other powers in the Bill.

8.15 pm

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

I have been puzzling over how my hon. Friend has come up with this construction, but I think that I am at last beginning to understand. Is he arguing that, under new clause 5, if the Secretary of State has not exercised his powers in relation to best value over three years, all the powers in the Act, including the power to cap, will fall away?

Mr. Jenkin

That is exactly it. I am sorry that I have not made myself as clear as I could have.

Mr. Letwin

In that case, the new clause is vastly better and more powerful than many of us thought. [Interruption.] Judging by the chuntering of Labour Front Benchers, it is much more powerful than the Government themselves understood.

Mr. Jenkin

The purpose of the new clause is to provide for circumstances in which the panoply of powers will begin to fall away from Government, allowing local authorities more autonomy and more control over their affairs. We thought that the Government believed in that when they were in opposition. I have here a number of early-day motions signed by hon. Members who are now in government, expressing such sentiments.

Mr. Letwin

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the new clause obviously vastly improves the situation for which the Bill provides, it might improve the situation further if the falling away of powers under clause 29—the capping powers—occurred if they had not been exercised for three years, regardless of what had happened to the best value powers?

Mr. Jenkin

I certainly accept that there are alternative ways of sunsetting the provisions, but the purpose of linking the sunsetting of the capping and tax limitation powers and the best value powers in relation to the exercise of the best value powers is this. If an authority is achieving best value to the extent that the Secretary of State need not exercise his best value powers, the result must be that the authority is exercising its function effectively, efficiently and economically, and providing its council tax payers with a good service at a reasonable price. That is why I chose those powers rather than the capping powers. An authority may well avoid capping, but if it is not running its service effectively, why should it be exempt from the other powers in the Bill?

Mr. Letwin

I think that I am beginning to understand my hon. Friend's deep logic—[Interruption.] I mean that entirely seriously. He seems to be saying that, under clause 29, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to devise appropriate principles for the invocation of capping if he had not already determined that a local authority had failed to achieve best value.

Mr. Jenkin

If the local authority had failed to achieve best value, the powers in the Bill would remain intact. I suspect that the Secretary of State would continue to exercise his powers with regard to best value, and would therefore keep alive the other powers in the Bill.

If best value is truly intended to work, it will presumably become less and less necessary for Ministers to intervene. If we are to believe that best value will work, as the Government say, the intervention powers in the best value part of the Bill should be used less and less often, and it should be possible to relieve authorities of their burdens. We must believe that the Government do not want to cap authorities, and do not want to have their powers in perpetuity, because of what they used to say when in opposition.

I am holding a copy of early-day motion 73, dated 5 June 1997, which states: That this House believes that local decision-making should be less constrained by central Government and also more accountable to local people; therefore considers it unacceptable to continue the practice of capping local authority expenditure so as to deny local discretion. If I go back a little further in history, I find early-day motion 327, dated 9 December 1996, stating that its signatories condemn the imposition through capping of expenditure cuts in local authorities. The motion was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)— who is in the Chamber—and by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is now a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry.

History is rich with such examples. Another early-day motion demanded that the Government ends its policy of capping local authorities". It was signed by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson); by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who is now a Government Whip; by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney); by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield—again—and even by the Secretary of State for Wales.

Jackie Ballard

The hon. Gentleman is giving the House a fascinating history lesson. I should be grateful if he would add to it by reminding us of who introduced capping powers.

Mr. Jenkin

I do not think that that is in dispute. Some people do not seem to understand that the Conservative party lost the general election, and that Conservative Members are now doing what we were overwhelmingly elected to do—to oppose. When one loses an election, it is a time to reassess one's policies. The Government seem to have been elected and, immediately, changed their mind about some of the fundamental issues on local authorities.

Sir Paul Beresford

The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) neglected to set the scene in which capping was introduced, or to describe the effects that had to be achieved in trying to inhibit the behaviour of many local authorities. The previous Labour Government were themselves starting to take the same action. The hon. Lady has been praising some Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities, in which I can appreciate why there may be some feeling against capping.

Mr. Jenkin

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The history of local government is the history of circumstances dictating ever more control over local authorities. However, now that the atmosphere in local government is changing, and the hard left has been defeated, there is an opportunity to consider alternatives.

Perhaps the most enlightening early-day motion I have is one that calls for abolition of capping as undemocratic". It was signed by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; again by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield—his name appears regularly in such motions; and by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. The list goes on. Another motion calls for the Government to abandon the use of standard spending assessments in determining their arbitrary capping limits. The same argument applies to the Government's proposals in the Bill on council tax benefit limitation powers. Early-day motion 544, dated 2 December 1997, was signed by no fewer than 100 Labour Members, criticising the Government for their provisions on housing benefit in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, the Government are now applying, in their council tax limitation, exactly the same principles used in the earlier legislation. A few brave souls signed early-day motion 182, which criticises the Government for going down that road.

We know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment fought a bitter battle in Cabinet to try and stop implementation of council tax benefit limitation. One should therefore have thought that the Government would look favourably on an amendment such as new clause 5—which would provide an opportunity to sunset unattractive powers that no hon. Member truly wants to exercise over local authorities, and that are in the Bill of necessity, not desire—to provide a sensible and structured way in which such powers might gradually be reduced.

In a letter of 14 January 1999 to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham said: The Association also considers that the reserve capping powers should be time-limited, ending after, say five years, by which time the other aspects of the reform agenda should be in place. The right hon. Lady has repeatedly said that the entire purpose of best value and of the Government's—as they call it—reform and modernisation of local government is to provide an opportunity to give more responsibility back to local authorities. Our new clause 5 would give real life to the Government's supposed commitments to local democracy, autonomy and control.

If the Government do not wish to commit themselves to accepting new clause 5, we shall divide the House on it, to demonstrate the seriousness of our intent and purpose in reforming local government, so that local government shall have more autonomy and more control. The Conservative party is a party that means what it says, rather unlike the Labour party.

I emphasise to the Minister that our new clause 5 is a structured proposal that will be paced according to how the Secretary of State himself exercises the powers provided to him in the Bill. It should be possible for the Minister to give it a warm welcome.

Mr. Curry

There is a serious purpose behind new clause 5—to discover whether the Government believe that the panoply of powers that they are now taking unto themselves, adding to current powers, will be needed in perpetuity. The principle of best value, as I understand it, is that it will produce regular improvement in how local government delivers services. As we discussed in Committee, there is bound to be a time when the excellent become a little more excellent, the ordinary move up a bit in the league tables, and the rather unambitious ones in the bottom half of the tables become passable. However, with each improvement, incremental gain becomes ever more difficult to achieve. Do the Government believe that there will be perpetual improvement, or is there a local government nirvana in which authorities will be deemed to be performing satisfactorily? The purpose of the new clause is to find the answer to that question.

There are two possible scenarios. In the first, we look at the current circumstances of local government. The Minister may need to be prompted when he replies, but he should not need my questions interpreted as we go along. I try to speak in relatively modest English.

Ms Armstrong

The right hon. Gentleman is not saying anything new.

8.30 pm

Mr. Curry

I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows from her long experience in the House that politics is often a matter of trying to repeat arguments that were clearly not understood the first time.

In the first scenario, we accept that there is clearly room for significant improvements in local government at the moment. The Secretary of State should not have to use his powers, because delivering improvements will not need a gargantuan effort or the skills of rocket scientists, although there may be problems in one or two areas. For example, we have a "will he, won't he?" situation in Hackney on the future of the education service.

Improvements should be evident early on, but what happens 10 years down the road if the legislation is still in place and local authorities have made significant improvements? Having made a great deal of effort they may find it difficult to continue making incremental gains. The Secretary of State will not give up and will continue to expect more gains. Every year, all Governments build cost-efficiencies into their financing formulae and expect productivity gains. Every year people protest that the gains are not easy to achieve. At some stage, they are bound to be right.

Do the Government envisage the extraordinarily extensive powers of intervention being needed in perpetuity? They have released local government into a gilded cage. It is an open prison in which local authorities cannot see the walls, but they know that if they go beyond a certain frontier they will get an electric shock and the guards will come after them. That is the best value principle.

I quite like the best value principle, because it is a logical successor to the compulsory competitive tendering process. It would not have been introduced without the experience of competitive tendering. The previous Government were looking for a more sophisticated mechanism that was less demanding of resources to supersede competitive tendering. One cannot say that the Government's proposals will not require vast resources for policing. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is having a conversation on the Front Bench at the moment. The Treasury may become rather twitchy at some stage about the resources demanded by all the monitoring. It usually reacts like that.

Mr. Gray

Did I understand correctly that my right hon. Friend believed that CCT involved more monitoring costs than best value? Surely it is the other way round.

Mr. Curry

No, that is the opposite of what I said. The previous Government were concerned about the manpower costs of CCT. We recognised that it was necessary to find a mechanism to allow the most responsive and competitive authorities to recover certain freedoms and discretions, relieving some of the manpower costs. That is a logical incentive. Best value has provided a different mechanism for control, but it has not relieved the public purse—defined in the broadest sense—of the immense cost of the supervision. The money resolution had to give enormous new resources to the Audit Commission.

Mr. Forth

I hope that my right hon. Friend is not forgetting the unquantified additional costs added to the Bill by the previous group of amendments, in which we identified a new army of co-ordinators, forums and all sorts of other things that would—probably mistakenly—attempt to co-ordinate all the others.

Mr. Curry

I have not forgotten about that. We pointed to the need for some co-ordination, but we are anxious that co-ordination should not take over the inspection functions. The costs will be very substantial.

I should like to tease out what the Government think that local government will look like in 10 years. That is a legitimate question. Governments tend to look at the ground immediately in front of them, because that is where the landmines explode, but they have another major local government Bill on the way—apparently it is to be published in the next few days—that is also very prescriptive of how local authorities must behave and what choices they have to take, removing discretion from councils to choose their own form of management. We are getting prescription across the board. I am anxious to know whether there is some stage at which the rhetoric of liberty—the freedom rhetoric—will be complemented by measures that suggest that local government is to be trusted.

As I said in Committee, the Government and their predecessors—I am not in the business of repentance politics, so I do not apologise for it—were more concerned about good local administration than about local government. The Bill is another prescription for efficient local administration, but it removes local government from the people because it does not give them the discretion to choose—even to choose bad councillors and inefficient local government if they want to live with that.

What does the Minister envisage as the net result of the legislation? It has a purpose. At some stage, we hope to reach a form of local government about which we can say reform has been achieved, when we can return local government to the people. The community should take responsibility for local government; we do not need a canopy of measures constantly riding shotgun.

If the Minister can give us some idea of the Government's intentions, the new clause will not be necessary. It was tabled to try to tease out some idea of where the Government imagine they will end up after the long voyage that they have undertaken with the local government barque being towed behind at some distance. If the Minister can tell us that, she will do us all a service. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has done us a great service by tabling the new clause which requires that question to be asked and answered.

The sunset clause provides for the natural extinction of powers if they have not been exercised. If they have not been exercised, that is because the local authority concerned behaved in a way that the Secretary of State deemed satisfactory. In a sense, that is an incentive; it is a means by which the local authority can be rewarded with more freedom through the absence of restraint and direction. I do not understand why the Minister does not admit that that is rather a good idea. It enables a local authority to demonstrate its efficiency, good will and capability. If it can do that, why on earth should it continue to be bound by the constraints. Why can it not be said that a local authority has demonstrated that it can live within the responsibilities defined by its own electorate instead of by the Government? If the Minister accepts that, she will have done local government a service instead of constantly talking about its freedom.

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)

I welcome the new clause as it provides a useful opportunity to debate a number of issues in the Bill. It also reflects the Conservative Front-Bench approach to revisionism and repentance in respect of the 18 years of Conservative Government. We welcome that, although I listened to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) saying that he did not wish to be part of the repentance side of the exercise.

New clause 5 is a clever amendment, as was reflected in the exchanges around the Chamber. It provides for the cessation of the capping power being exercised by the Secretary of State if a local authority is a good local authority under the terms of the Bill. If the Secretary of State has no need to use the best value powers to regulate a local authority, after the three-year period to which the new clause refers the other powers within the Bill cease to have effect. That is to be welcomed.

It is a pity that the Conservatives did not take that approach in government and that it took the sunset of a general election for them to realise that such a measure would focus the energy and attention of local government. I urge the Government to give the new clause serious thought, as it represents another way of achieving their intentions in respect of beacon councils. Beacon councils are about providing a means by which local authorities can secure greater independence, autonomy and freedom of action for and on behalf of their local communities. If the new clause can achieve that, it must be welcomed.

We have one or two reservations, however, because the new clause does not extinguish those powers; it merely adds a second stage to the exercise of those powers.

If a Secretary of State wished to cap a council that for the first three years after the Bill's enactment had been good in his eyes and had complied with the provisions on best value, he would first have to come to the House to override the measure that the amendment would place in the Bill, and would then have to come back again with another motion to cap the council. That would not be a bad thing, because the Secretary of State would have to think twice before exercising the powers that the Bill will give him in respect of a secretive, selective and—in some respects—dubious process of capping.

This is a debate about capping, as well as a debate about best value. Some may have thought that we were straying on to a debate on the following group of amendments, but it is entirely right that we dwell on the consequences of the capping powers that the Government are taking to themselves which, in some ways, are much more invidious than those that the previous Government developed over a number of years. Those powers were crude and universal but the powers that this Government are proposing are far worse, because they allow a far more selective approach. It is for that reason—perhaps more than any other—that the new clause should be supported.

Mr. Letwin

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the peculiar features of clause 29 is that it appears to constrain the arbitrariness of the reserved power while doing nothing of the kind? The Department has been more expert, perhaps, than any other in our nation's history in inventing principles that have the remarkable result of identifying only a single case for capping, or for anything else.

Mr. Burstow

I am sure that the advice to Ministers will be produced in a masterly way to assist them in achieving their aims. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and that is in no way disrespectful of the professional way in which the work is done. However, the work is enabling Ministers to achieve their ends, and the Bill is very much about Ministers achieving their ends at the expense of local democracy and local choice by local people.

Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)

And council tax formulae.

Mr. Burstow

As my hon. Friend says, the proposals undoubtedly have an important impact on decisions that local authorities take on council tax—decisions that are largely out of their hands as a consequence of the system that this Government are operating, but which the previous Government largely constructed.

If best value is about anything, it is about making sure that local authorities deliver good and effective services that are appropriate and relevant to the needs of the local community. The problem is that the Government think that they know better than every local authority in the land about what that means. That is the problem with the proposals on best value. Therefore any measure that enables us to debate the powers and to recognise them for what they are—a set of powers designed to prescribe and direct local government, and to transfer it into an agency of central Government—is entirely to be supported. We will support the new clause because it is undoubtedly right that, at the very least, we in this place should be able to debate whether the Secretary of State should use the powers in future.

Many local authorities who, through their own good efforts, will deliver what the Government call best value should and ought to be able to escape the capping regime; both the crude and universal capping through council tax benefit subsidy limitation, and the more sophisticated, behind-the-door and sneaky form of capping proposed by schedule 1.

Mr. Letwin

The new clause is something like a lion seen from afar: it looks small but it is in fact big.

Mr. Curry

Or an elephant.

Mr. Letwin

Indeed, except that a lion has a roar, which distinguishes it from an elephant.

8.45 pm

The new clause has a particular logic in the context of local government finance and the architecture of the Bill, and it raises a major constitutional issue. I must admit that I share the concern that many Conservative Members had when we first heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) speaking to the new clause. We thought that he had somehow missed its effect. I should have known better, because my hon. Friend is one of our more distinguished intellects and would not have made that mistake. He did the House the service of descending to the level of the rest of us and explaining the logic of the new clause, which is even more profound, important and just than he gave himself credit for.

Dorset county council has for many years followed all the rules imposed on it by central Government. That is because it has been in recent times under Liberal governance and not run by some lunatic Labour administration.

Mr. Gray

What?

Mr. Letwin

I will relieve my hon. Friend's concerns in a moment.

Alas, the county council has not derived anything like best value from its operations. I recently lobbied it about a footpath in Salway Ash, stretching from the church at one end of the village to the houses at the other. It remains a matter of mystery why the church was built so far from the houses, but it was, and so was the school. We went along to the council and asked whether it could build a footpath from one end to the other, and we were told that the total cost would be about £100,000.

Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)

My hon. Friend has raised rather an important point about villages where the houses are a long way from the church, which also happens in Norfolk. In the time of great plagues, communities moved, and the only permanent building was the church, which was therefore at some distance from the new settlement.

Mr. Letwin

I am profoundly grateful to my hon. Friend for illuminating what may indeed be the history of the case; but I will not dwell on that.

The county council said that the footpath would cost £100,000 because it had exerted itself to obtain best value and discovered that it would come, at that price, from its own work force. We were surprised, then, to discover, on obtaining a quotation from a local private contractor, that the very same path could be constructed for £10,000: a point that the council is now wrestling with, wholly unsuccessfully, under its Liberal administration. There is every appearance of the game being lost and the council being unable to find any reason why it should continue to build amenities such as footpaths when it cannot demonstrate that it can build them for less than 10 times the price asked by the private sector.

Ms Keeble

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the council operated competitive tendering and went for what appeared to be the lowest quotation. If it had followed the best value rules, it would have consulted the local community, and might have found that people did not want the footpath at all.

Mr. Letwin

I do not want to dwell much longer on the footpath, but I cannot resist observing that the hon. Lady's intervention encapsulates more or less every mistake that she could have made. I was lobbying the council because I had consulted the local community—all 300 of them—and 298 had said that they would like the footpath. Dorset county council has been highly progressive in seeking best value rather than competitive tendering. It consulted extensively. Alas, under a Liberal Democrat administration, the result has been lamentable—but I do not wish to make merely partisan points.

There is a serious problem with best value. Like many, I support the concept, but remain sceptical about the ability of local authorities—even serious, sensible councils that are not lunatic—to achieve anything that would be recognised in business circles as best value.

New clause 5 is extremely subtle. It allows for the possibility that a Secretary of State who judges that a council has, over a three-year period, achieved best value—and who thus has not used the powers in the Bill—may still intervene in almost every part of the local authority's affairs to impose best value. Only in such a case would the new clause end the capping powers.

This apparently slight new clause contains a new doctrine of the relationship between local government and central Government. We used to think it proper not to intervene when a local authority was not spending too much money. That was a Treasury-driven metaphysic.

We are discussing a much subtler proposition. New clause 5 says that if the Secretary of State determines that spending is good—that best value has been achieved—his powers to cap should be removed. It would be left to the local population to decide the level of spending that it wanted. The Secretary of State could not intervene, so long as he had assured himself that the money was being put to good purpose through best value.

That is a profound—and right—shift in our perception of the proper relationship between local and central Government. It shows a depth of thought in the re-evaluation process to which the Minister will give credit if he is feeling generous. We know that if the Government spot a good idea generated on the Conservative Benches, they will begin a sequence of action. First, they will decry it; secondly, they will consider it; thirdly, they will adopt it. Finally, they will announce that they were its progenitors.

We should welcome that. We should be happy if the Government—even if they reject new clause 5—adopt in future a much better doctrine of the relationship between local government and central Government of the type encapsulated in the brilliant new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. We should not be so churlish as to deny them the great public relations victory that they would doubtless seek to gain by announcing that they had had the idea themselves.

I do not wish to dwell on the relationship between new clause 5 and local government finance. The new clause raises a major constitutional issue, and I hope that the Minister will say how he could defend the rejection of new clause 5, given its constitutional significance.

New clause 5 time-limits an awesome—and rather intrusive—series of powers. They relate, it is true, not to individuals but to intermediate institutions—local authorities and any other best value authority. The Minister will ask why the powers should be time-limited, when so many other powers are not. If that is his approach, it will illustrate the very constitutional point that I seek to make and it will show how far we have fallen from grace. The Minister should be asking why we should not limit the powers in time, because Parliament used to do so regularly. For example, the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 was time-limited. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was time-limited. The Licensing Act 1964 was time-limited. The Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 was time-limited. The Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 was time-limited. As all hon. Members know, Prevention of Terrorism Acts have also been time-limited.

So common was time limiting in our history—although many hon. Members present may have forgotten it—that it used to be the practice regularly to produce an Expiring Laws Continuance Act, as was done in 1969 and 1970, to continue time-limited Acts for a further year. That was a splendid practice, because almost all the Acts that were time-limited contained powers of a highly intrusive nature. A parliamentary doctrine, repeated in debate over a century and a half, made it clear that if Acts gave exceptional and intrusive powers—or arbitrary and wide-ranging powers—to a Secretary of State, it was appropriate, unless there was an extraordinary argument to the contrary, that they should be time-limited.

I am sure that the Minister will be especially interested in the case of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955. Section 5(5) of that Act is a specific time-expiry provision, although it is not as subtle as new clause 5. It is a blunter instrument and simply provides that the powers in the Act should expire at a certain date. In the Committee stage of proceedings on the Act, a certain distinguished Member of Parliament said: I am extremely glad that the Government have accepted… these Amendments. It deals with one of the main concerns which many of us on this side have discussed during the debates on the Bill: that is to say, we feared that an Act introduced for an entirely different purpose might, after a number of years, be distorted for a quite opposite purpose… Personally, I should prefer the Government to limit the period to a shorter term… Nevertheless we have done our best."—[Official Report, 29 March 1955; Vol. 539, c. 305–6.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about other Acts and he should not go into detail about when they were debated. He should get back to new clause 5.

Mr. Letwin

As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for that admonition. Luckily, too, I had finished the quotation. I mentioned it because the Minister will be interested to learn that it was from one Mr. Michael Foot, who cannot be said to have been a reactionary Conservative making utterances for the sake of causing trouble. That doctrine used to be espoused on both sides of the House, even by those most devoted to socialism in its full-blooded form. However, we still find that new clause 5 has not met with the ready acceptance of Ministers. Why not? I regret that the reason undoubtedly is that they have been corrupted by the same thing as afflicted the previous Administration. That is not a partisan point, but a serious one about what happens to Governments in their relationship to local government and in their whole use of powers.

9 pm

Later this evening, we shall debate Henry VIII clauses and the same point will be made then: the Labour Government have introduced more wide-ranging powers for Secretaries of State to amend Acts by order than ever before in British history. That is regrettable, but the Government have not done it on their own; those powers are the culmination of a trend. Similarly, we see the culmination of a trend in this measure. I remember the vigorous arguments of the early 1980s when the great expansion of local government finance first occurred—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the new clause. Other matters have nothing to do with what is before the House at the moment.

Mr. Letwin

I am talking about the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am trying to explain why the Government have fallen into the trap of opposing the new clause. The reason is that, as we did before them, they have fallen into the trap of imagining that Government control over local government is a necessary evil. They have failed to observe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put his own case. I have not heard the Minister speak on the new clause, so we do not know what the Government's view is. We must hear the voices for the new clause and then, if necessary, we shall hear the voices against it. Let us not get into detailed explanations of why the Government should oppose the new clause until we have heard what they have to say.

Mr. Letwin

I would not dream of suggesting that I know what the Government will say, although you might agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Government did not intend to take the view that I was describing, Ministers would by now—in what I regret is rather a long speech—have intervened. We know that the Government will not accept the new clause.

To reverse the point and make it positive, the reason for the new clause is that the Government need to adapt; they need to realise that local government is capable of running its own affairs. It is vital that if this country is to have a grown-up local democracy, local people should be given the chance to decide whether local government is running its affairs properly. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex has said that the clause should be time-limited only if best value is being exhibited, rather than time-limiting the whole clause. He is saying that the local population may not be able to judge whether there is best value, but they are able to judge whether they like the level of local government spending.

Personally, I should have gone further. If those powers must be introduced at all—in respect of clause 29, I regret their introduction entirely—they should all be strictly time-limited. My hon. Friend has not gone that far and I understand why. However, it is also necessary for Ministers to understand it, until they come to the realization—one to which we came very painfully as a result of the prolonged arguments between the Treasury-driven side and the democratically driven side that we went through from the 1980s—that repeated efforts by Government permanently to control local government are no more than a route to perdition. Ultimately, those efforts corrode local democratic accountability and generate their own necessity: because Governments undermine local democracy, they feel more and more inclined to control it and we enter a vicious circle. The new clause nobly attempts—although not as fully as it might have done—to begin to extricate us from that vicious circle.

Ms Keeble

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was an adviser to Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister and to Secretaries of State for Education while the Conservatives were developing the thinking that resulted in the imposition of more regulations and strangleholds on local government than have ever before been experienced. Is he saying that he was wrong to do that, or is he now into the repentance politics of the Conservative party?

Mr. Letwin

I am saying that we collectively made a dreadful error in believing that it was necessary to intervene more and more to achieve the effects we sought. At the time, I was in favour of introducing forms of fiscal regime that would make the local populace take seriously the question of what councils were spending, and then freeing the councils to act on their own. I am sure that you do not want me to go into the details, Mr. Deputy Speaker; suffice it to say that my side lost the argument and the result was both a tax that, as it turned out, was too tough, and controls and interventions. The hon. Lady is right if she accuses the Conservative Government of that, but that does not negate the fact that the Labour Government are now repeating the mistake. In fact, they are repeating it twice over, not only through capping, but through the best value intrusion. With the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is offering the Government a lifeline.

With that, I shall bring my remarks to a close. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is a matter of great constitutional importance that he should recognise the force of the argument that there should be a natural presumption in favour of the falling away of any hugely arbitrary power from legislation, and that there is an extraordinarily strong case for time-limiting the powers relating to best value if he wants to give back to local government a degree of democratic accountability that will ultimately be his only source of rescue from the vicious circle into which he is getting himself.

For both reasons, I hope that the Minister will not take the adverse line that I, perhaps improperly, speculated he would take, and that he will come to the Dispatch Box and surprise us all by welcoming this brilliant new clause.

Sir Paul Beresford

In supporting the new clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) correctly pointed out that many Conservative Members, rather than being repenters, regard the best value aspects of the Bill as the continuation of a trend that started under a Labour Government in the late 1970s. Someone described local authorities as falling into three groups: parasitic, commensal and catalytic. In the late 1970s, the parasitic variety was dominant. Since then, the middle group of commensal authorities appears to have expanded and the catalytic group, which all Governments have tried to encourage, has slowly increased.

To set the scene, let me go back to the days of the Conservative Government's dealings with local government, in the 1980s and early 1990s. There was a trend of considering not only the financial aspects of local government, but, I remind the repenters, the way in which local authorities organised and ran their services. We introduced the Audit Commission and the citizens charter as the means to encourage local government to move forward. Many local authorities failed to improve: they continued to ignore the fact that they were not providing any value, let alone best value, and to plague local residents both financially and through the quality of services.

When I first arrived in this country, I lived and worked in areas such as the east end of London which had appalling local authorities—I shall ignore their political complexion, but most hon. Members will be able to guess. Those authorities imposed on local people huge council taxes—or rates as they were then—plundered local businesses and provided appalling services. The next stage of attempting to force local authorities to examine their services, which best value also attempts to do, was the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, which was remarkably successful.

Having set that scene, the next scene we come to is the best value scene. Best value appears to many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, to be the next stage in the process I have described. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is going one step further. He is saying that we should look further ahead and accept that there are an increasing number of catalytic local authorities—to use the original description—for whom new clause 5 is the right approach.

The Minister has said time and again that we must have faith in local authorities. She also said that we should have faith in her. I can take a limited step forward with regard to local authorities, but I have no faith in her or her Government's approach. A number of local authorities are best value authorities that meet many of the Bill's requirements without the huge imposition of inspections, procedures and expenditure on consultation that it demands. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is giving the Minister the chance to accept that the top 10 per cent. of authorities—perhaps even more than that—should be left alone to get on with their successful operations.

The spirit behind best value is the same as the spirit behind compulsory competitive tendering. Using the reserve powers in the Bill—which involve best value and capping—we will get hold of those authorities at the bottom and lift them to the top. Middle-range authorities can and will benefit if best value is introduced properly. I am concerned that that will not happen and that we are placing a liability on local authorities in implementing best value.

That is certainly the case with the top 10 local authorities. Several local authorities in London have proved time and again that they provide a satisfactory service—both in terms of service and value for money—to local residents. Therefore, I was disturbed by the Minister's attack yesterday on three authorities that have satisfied the voting public about the quality of their service provision. Several surveys conducted by the local authorities—which were not required to do so under best value and thus did not face the heavy cost of Audit Commission reactions—pointed to that high degree of voter satisfaction.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex says that we must take a deep breath and recognise that several local authorities meet the targets, aims and aspirations set out by the Minister in the Bill. We should relieve them of the burden of council tax capping.

Mr. Letwin

I bow to my hon. Friend's greater expertise in this area, but does he not agree that the cunning of new clause 5 is that the second part of it need not apply? Local authorities might impose council taxes but, as long as they lived up to best value, they would escape the capping provisions.

Sir Paul Beresford

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am concerned that the Minister may come to the Dispatch Box at the end of the debate and refer to the generosity to the beacon councils as a substitute for the new clause. [Interruption.]

I have read all the paraphernalia about beacon authorities, and I fear that many authorities are being forced down a road that they may not wish to take. The actions of local authorities may be impeded. New clause 5 is simplicity itself—even if it is difficult technically—because it says that the best authorities, according to a best value measurement, with low council tax should be freed from the burden and be allowed to provide their services locally with the support of the voting public.

I think of two authorities in particular that have been lambasted by the Government, but time and again, the public have given them enormous support. They will be burdened by the Bill, unless we can persuade the Minister to accept new clause 5. [Interruption.] That will give us the opportunity to change the emphasis, rather than the technicalities, and remove the burden from local authorities.

9.15 pm

Mr. Gray

It is always slightly terrifying to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who, from his time in Wandsworth, epitomises in so many respects all that is best about local government and the way that we ran it, providing the best possible services to people at the cheapest price without any of the unnecessary paraphernalia proposed in the Bill.

I am puzzled because the Minister's sedentary comments during my hon. Friend's speech seemed to imply that new clause 5 will not end that interventionism. I am puzzled also that she should find it necessary to make such sedentary remarks at all. That seems rather strange behaviour for a Minister, and if there is a way to demonstrate that the new clause would not do as my hon. Friend said, it might have been sensible for her to intervene on him in the time-honoured traditions of the House, rather than muttering from the Front Bench.

I am also cowed by the fact that I am following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), whose learning and elegance of exposition terrifies anybody who follows him. I was, however, worried when he heaped praise on Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset county council, which is a bizarre thing to do. I must say that, hate it as I would, I should prefer to have a Labour-controlled council in my county than a Liberal Democrat-controlled council. The only thing worse would be a Lib-Lab council, which is what Wiltshire had until a recent by-election allowed the Conservatives to take control of the council, and we look forward to significant changes being made.

I was disappointed that I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, which I would have greatly enjoyed. However, I tried to follow its proceedings from Hansard and discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have experience of local government because I serve, with other hon. Members who are present, on the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which last year produced a report on the implementation of best value, which we greatly enjoyed doing. The Select Committee is currently involved in discussing how we can improve local government finance. Without giving away any secrets, I can say that the results of those discussions will be known in a week or two. It will be interesting to find out how the Select Committee views capping and other aspects of local government finance in that report, and how it will influence the outcome of the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The House will have an opportunity to hear how the Select Committee conducts its affairs, but we must return to new clause 5.

Mr. Gray

I was conscious that I had begun to ramble, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for correcting me.

My point is that the Select Committee report on capping will be interesting because it may have a direct bearing on the sunset clause—new clause 5.

Conservative Members are not opposed to the principle of best value. Indeed, we think that local government exists precisely to strive continuously to provide a best-quality service to the public at an affordable cost. Delivering high-calibre services has long been a priority of Conservative-controlled councils, and we are proud of that record. Unlike hon. Members who constantly talk about us being sorry for what we did while we were in government, I am not the slightest bit sorry for that, particularly in relation to local government. I am proud of the fact that we introduced compulsory competitive tendering and reformed local government, which when we came to power in 1979 was, by and large, a complete shambles. So much of what we did in DOE terms—I worked in the Department of the Environment for two or three years—took great strides in putting right some of the worst aspects of local government.

Ms Keeble

Is the hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that the Conservative Government brought riots to the streets of all our inner cities in the early 1980s, and brought riots again with the poll tax?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. These matters are a little wide of new clause 5.

Mr. Gray

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not be tempted into answering the hon. Lady's point, although from her privileged position in Cheltenham Ladies' college and elsewhere, I cannot imagine what she knows about protest in the streets of London.

Of course CCT had its downside and its disadvantages. All of us would be concerned about one or two aspects of the way in which it worked. None the less, it had two overwhelming advantages, which best value demonstrably does not have. First, it was relatively clear, straightforward and intellectually pure. We knew what it was. It was the application of the market—the use of the tendering process and the market to provide the best possible local government services. That is exactly the opposite of the interventionist and bureaucratic approach of best value.

Secondly, leaving aside the interventions that the Government had to make when CCT was not properly applied—from my time in the Department of the Environment, I remember how often that was, especially when left-wing Labour councils went out of their way to find ways to avoid applying CCT—it largely allowed local government to go about its business. By and large, local authorities put their business out to tender and accepted the best tender.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside)

The hon. Gentleman supports compulsory competitive tendering and opposes best value, yet the new clause to which he is speaking deals with best value. Does he not think that his comments contradict those of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), of whom he expressed such great fear and terror?

Mr. Gray

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The fact that we both serve on the Select Committee deters me from being too harsh in my reaction to her remarks. The new clause implies that CCT was better. The interventionism implicit in the best value regime would end after three years if it were not used. It is a sunset clause. If a local authority does what it ought to do and provides best value at the best possible price, which is its duty, the interventionist powers of the Secretary of State will lapse.

I am arguing that that is what happened under the CCT regime. The local authority was left to get ahead with its own business. It put the business out to tender, examined the tenders as they came in, chose the best one at the best price, and delivered the best services at the best price.

One has only to look at Wandsworth, where I had the privilege to live for a number of years when it was run by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, to see what CCT could do in turning round the worst-run local authority into the best-run local authority at the best price to the taxpayer. At one stage, as hon. Members will remember, the council tax in Wandsworth went to zero. Throughout its history, the poll tax was lowest in Wandsworth.

How different from that is the best value regime. The precise way in which it will work is, to say the least, a little clouded in mystery. The Select Committee's examination of best value last year came to the conclusion that it was weak and vague at its extremities—probably a well enough intentioned sort of idea, but definitely weak round the margins. Who would set the standards by which the local authority would judge itself? If those standards were not achieved, what a large amount of intervention by the Secretary of State would follow.

The setting of standards by which the local authority's delivery will be judged—and the way in which the Government ensure that they are sufficiently robust and demanding—is entirely bureaucratic, to a degree that is beloved of Labour politicians in so many ways. They love committees, bureaucracy, regulations and restrictions. They love telling people what to do. They love to tell local government that they know best, that they will lay down what is best and that if local government does not live up to that, they will intervene. All that is so beloved of Labour in every aspect, and so hated by Conservative Members. We believe in giving people the right to make their own decisions and to lead their own lives. That is why the new clause is so important.

The thrust of the debate about the place of local government in society today, and of the debate in the Select Committee on the subject of local government finance, has been to find a way of telling local government that it has a real constitutional role to play, that it is the elected representative of the people and that it has been chosen locally to make important decisions about the way in which life is run locally, and to find a way to allow it the freedom to govern as it should.

The new clause takes the principles of best value which, as I say, are weak, interventionist and bureaucratic, but limits them. It sets out how the best possible services can be provided at the best possible price to the electorate. We welcome that. It goes on to say that, if local authorities can do that for three years and the Secretary of State has no reason to intervene, at the end of that period, the Secretary of State will have those rights of intervention removed. That is an extraordinarily important democratic step which is directly in line with the flow of current thinking on local government.

The new clause is saying, as both parties go to great lengths to say in the Select Committee, that more authority should be given to local government—and we must find ways of handing authority back to it. There is much talk about whether it should have more power to raise its own finance. All that is important. Local government must either be a delivering mechanism—a management mechanism—or it must be true government, in which case powers must be handed back to it. That is why the Opposition feel so uneasy about many of the central proposals in the Bill.

The Bill says to local government, "You are not local government at all. I, the Secretary of State, know more about the provision of good services than you guys do. You may be elected, but that's tough. I am elected and I am the Secretary of State, and I know more than you fellows do. I shall pretend that you have a lot of powers. I shall remove CCT. That was bad because of the market and because it was compulsory"—

Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)

My hon. Friend is beginning to develop his arguments on this crucial point, but does he agree that, as long as the Government still have the power to come back to the House for an overriding order in due course, the onus is very much on them to say why they are not prepared to allow the powers broadly to lapse after three years where an authority has behaved well?

Mr. Gray

My hon. Friend is right. The fact that the Government would have to come back to the House to seek a positive resolution to reintroduce the powers would put the onus back on to the Government. We should be saying, "You need to demonstrate why you, the overmighty Secretary of State, should have the right to override the duly elected representatives of the people at local level." That is an important principle.

Ms Keeble

Did the hon. Gentleman give similar advice to John Gummer when it came to rate capping local councils and to calling in contracts?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is the convention in the House to refer to hon. Members by constituency.

Mr. Gray

I was so overwhelmed by the appalling lack of good manners on the part of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) that I missed her point. I suspect that she was making some cheap reference to the advice that I gave to my right hon. Friends the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the subject of local government. I did my best to provide what advice I could, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal used to say that I was something of the grit in his oyster, thereby producing a pearl, but not necessarily by easy means. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon who, sadly, has skipped out for supper, used to tell me that I was a good political adviser because whatever I advised, he did exactly the opposite and by that means, he was nearly always correct. I did not quite catch the hon. Lady's intervention, but it would almost certainly have missed its mark.

9.30 pm

The thrust of the new clause is to say that you in local government have been elected by the people. You in local government have been given the right—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Why do not I give the hon. Gentleman some advice? He should be careful of the term "you", which refers to the Chair.

Mr. Fallon

My hon. Friend has been a Member for two years.

Mr. Gray

As my hon. Friend reminds me, I have been a Member for two years. I was of course using the word "you" not to refer to the Chair or to Labour Members, but in a rhetorical way to describe what I would say to people in local government, to whom the word referred. None the less, I apologise for the inadvertent lack of courtesy to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

All that may seem to be relatively lightweight—flippant would be too strong a word—but a very important constitutional principle lies behind it. Both parties go to great lengths to pay lip service to the need to return authority to local government. We all say how frightfully important it is to do that; it is one of biggest mantras in all discussions about local government.

Conservative Members have tussled with the issue for some years; we have found some ways of returning power to local government and we are constantly seeking new ways of doing so. Labour Members pay great lip service to returning power to local government, and the Bill is part of that process. They say, "Fine, we will give some of these powers back to local government, which is marvellous. Here's best value; it's tremendous, isn't it? It takes away compulsion and tendering and gets rid of the market, which, goodness me, is a bad thing almost by definition—after all, the Tories introduced it. Best value is a new idea and it does away with compulsory competitive tendering. Isn't that fantastic?"

However, only when we look at the Bill's fine print do we discover that Labour Members are not giving anything at all back to local government; on the contrary, they are gathering more and more to themselves. It has been pointed out several times that the words "Secretary of State" appear 178 times in the Bill. He is gathering more and more control over local government to himself, which is why the new clause is so important.

Best value and the changes to the capping regime may have something to be said for them, but we will talk more about them when we discuss other amendments. The important point is that, under the new clause, the powers in the Bill would lapse if the Secretary of State did not have to use them. What could be more democratic or more important than giving back to local authorities the right to make their own decisions? If the Labour Government are genuine about their desire to give power back to local government, and if they do not want people to think that they are paying only lip service to that, what could be better than accepting the new clause?

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Powerful arguments are clearly being made in this debate. When it began, four Members were on the Treasury Bench. We reduced that number to three and then to two. Now there is only one Member on the Treasury Bench. I can only conclude that, one by one, those Members have had to be sent out to consult the spin doctors to find some arguments against what is becoming a powerful case for the new clause.

Mr. Waterson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that it is nothing short of remarkable that in a debate that has not only been interesting, but has raised some important constitutional issues, not a single Back-Bench Member of the Government has expressed any interest in making a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that we do not get into that particular discussion, because I want only debate on new clause 5.

Mr. Wilshire

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the point that you make.

Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I have taken a close interest in local government for the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House. To save the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions the trouble of looking up my credentials—he is the only Member left on the Treasury Bench—I remind hon. Members that I served on a town council and a county council, and was the leader of a district council, before I was elected to the House.

I was the leader of one of the district councils which, in the early days, invited the Audit Commission in to do a council over as thoroughly as possible. That is how the Audit Commission developed the three Es, which are at the heart of the argument being used about best value. I have been around the course many times. In listening to the arguments, I have the sinking feeling that it will not be the last time that we go around it.

New clause 5 raises an important question, which I hope Ministers will answer when it is their turn to say something: if a local authority meets all the best value criteria that the Government have set out, why do they need draconian central powers to back up that wonderful thing called best value? If best value is the best thing since sliced bread, or at least the best thing since the last general election, why do the Government still need to trample all over local government?

What has happened to the soundbite that we kept hearing in 1996, 1997 and even 1998 that went, "We are handing power back to the people"? The Bill is the exact opposite of that soundbite. When the Minister comes to speak, he owes the House and the nation an apology for that particular U-turn.

I cannot help wondering—again, perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten us—whether the Government are not confident about best value. It is one of the smoke and mirror things that they are so good at—making policy look presentable. Is it perhaps that secretly, deep down, although they dare not mention it, they do not believe that best value will work? If they believe that it will work, there are some more sinister reasons why we have the Bill and why they will vote against the new clause. It may be that best value is nothing more than a smokescreen for what the Government are really trying to do: take sweeping new powers over the whole of local government.

I have taken some stick in my time in local government. I was one of those whom many people loved to hate in those days; perhaps they still do. I took a lot of stick for defending previous Conservative Governments when they did things that the Labour party said were interfering in local government, but I have never tried to defend anything as draconian or as sweeping as this Bill. It goes a lot further than anything that Labour Members might accuse us of.

It is important that, before we get into the details of the new clause, we ensure that we understand in some detail what best value means. I am happy to listen to the Government on that. The Government define best value as continuous improvement in the way in which a local authority's functions are exercised.

I can live with that, but it leads me to ask yet another question: if a local authority continuously improves, in accordance with the definition, does not require capping when it starts down the process, and continues to conduct its affairs in a way that does not require capping for three years, why will the Minister need those powers? Why should he need to deal with a council that is behaving in exactly the way that he requires?

As well as the definition of best value, the Government set out tests that should be applied when considering whether best value is applicable. They say, surprise, surprise, that they want best value to be judged by the three Es: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I have little doubt that the Government will issue a press release or two saying how they invented that wonderful test and how the wicked Government from whom they took over had no concept, but I explained my credentials to make it clear that it was Conservative councils, under a Conservative Government, who tested, tried and introduced the very things that the Labour party claims as its own.

Because of my background, I can live with what the Government are describing as the tests for best value, but that leads me to another question that I hope the Minister will answer. If a local authority uses its resources economically, delivers services effectively and efficiently and continues to be economic, effective and efficient for three years, why should the Secretary of State need powers? What interference is intended that goes beyond the tests specified in the Bill?

Having expressed some of my own doubts, I should perhaps give the Government the benefit of the doubt, and invite the House to consider the implications of assuming that best value will work. If the House accepts the Government's argument that it will work, it must also accept our argument that the draconian powers in the Bill are not needed to deal with the councils that are making it work. Perhaps, however, the Government are saying that it is not enough to deliver best value. Perhaps they are saying that it is not enough for councils to live within the three Es. Is there something else that they want? If not, why do they need powers to use against councils that are manifestly abiding by not just the letter but the spirit of the law?

Sir Paul Beresford

My hon. Friend may receive the answer that the Government will reward local authorities, in which case there will be a reference to "beacon authorities". I hope that he has examined the requirements for "beacon authorities", which are very politically correct. Such authorities must follow a Government trend: if they want the financial benefits, they will be forced down that road by bribery. As a result they will be labelled, and will be landed with more bureaucracy, more difficulties and possibly, in some instances, with opportunities to engage in greater corruption.

Mr. Wilshire

I thought at first that my hon. Friend was being generous to the Government, but, following his final comment, I realised that he was not. My argument, however, was not that the Labour party had an answer along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, but that it did not have a single answer to any of the questions that I or anyone else had asked. Labour Members have been sitting there all the evening not saying a word. Perhaps my hon. Friend was being generous after all in suggesting that they have a counter-argument.

If I am wrong and there is no secret agenda over and above best value and the three Es, there is no reason for Labour Members not to vote for new clause 5, which does nothing that they say they are against.

Before we vote, it is essential for us to ensure that we understand exactly what the new clause seeks to do. It seeks to time-limit certain of the draconian powers that the Government are trying to take in respect of local democracy. In fact, there are 12 such powers, and I think that we should spend a moment considering each of them.

First, clause 5(2) seeks to empower the Secretary of State to order a review of best value practice. However, a council that is following best practice will not have to be ordered to conduct a review; it already will have conducted one or will be planning to do so. If the council is already doing a good job, why will the Government require a power to force it to do a good job? New clause 5 will remove the power, which manifestly is not needed.

9.45 pm

The second power that would be dealt with by the new clause is in clause 5(4), which states that the Secretary of State may order specific matters to be included in a review. However—again—if a council is behaving itself and is efficiently following best value, it will already be dealing with those matters. By definition, that is what best practice—the three Es—entails. Why, oh why will Labour Members today be voting against removing after three years a power to deal with councils that are manifestly behaving themselves? I simply cannot understand it.

In clause 5(4), my eye fell on paragraph e, which states that one of the ways in which some type of review or test should be conducted is to assess the competitiveness of its performance in exercising the function by reference to the exercise of the same function, or similar functions, by other best value authorities"— so far, so good; but then it goes on to say— and by commercial and other businesses". As I understand it, that means competitive tendering—the dreaded thing from which the Government said that they will spare us. It is lurking inside the Bill. Therefore, rather than abolishing competitive tendering, the Government are seeking powers in the Bill to force councils to operate it if they think that councils are not behaving themselves. It is another U-turn for which the Government should apologise to the nation.

The third power that the new clause seeks to remove is in clause 6(2), which would provide the Secretary of State with powers to order a council to include certain matters in a plan. Again, why do the Government need powers to order a council that is behaving itself to include something in a plan that it will already have included? I should have thought that part of the definition of best value—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—is to have a sensible plan. That is what it used to mean in my time in local government. Perhaps the Labour party has changed the definition, so that economy efficiency and effectiveness have been omitted. However, if best value means was it used to mean, why, oh why do the Government need powers to force a council that is behaving itself to behave itself?

The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh powers are all in clause 7(4). Just in case Labour Members feel that I am simply rehearsing an argument because I have been asked to do so by Opposition Front Benchers, I should say that I have some reservations on the provisions in clause 7. If we were to remove all the powers provided in the clause, we should be removing the powers of the auditor.

I should have thought that the Labour party would like to remove the auditor's powers, as the trouble with town halls is Labour sleaze. It should not be up to Conservative Members to weaken the auditor's power to expose the truth of Labour in local government. Happily, however, our new clause will not remove all of the auditor's powers. I simply ask my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), in giving the Opposition reply to the debate, to think carefully about whether he wants to help sleaze in Labour town halls. I am sure that he does not.

The eighth power that would be affected by passing new clause 5 deals with auditors issuing reports. Again, I have some anxiety about limiting the power of the auditor to issue reports. Clause 7(5)(c) says that the Secretary of State must take action on an auditor's report. On reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne might agree that requiring the Secretary of State to act on something rather than trying to shuffle it away is what the Foreign Affairs Committee was doing with the Foreign Secretary—trying to persuade him not to sit on a report or to hide, but to act. Some reflection on that might not come amiss.

The ninth change that the new clause would bring about relates to clause 9(5), which says that if there is a critical report from the auditor, the Secretary of State must act. If we agree not to make the changes that I have just referred to, there is no need to take that provision out. I ask the House to think carefully about the fact that it is consequential on the previous provisions.

The tenth change is to clause 10(2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct that an inspection should take place. That brings me back to my complaints about many of the previous powers. Why do the Government want powers to enforce an inspection against a council that is demonstrating best value? They must have some reason for wanting to demand an inspection of a council that is keeping to the rules, but I am blowed if I know what it is. I hope that we shall be enlightened on the secret agenda of wanting to demand an inquiry and send in inspectors when a council is following the rules. If there is no secret agenda, surely to goodness the Government will vote with us. The eleventh change, affecting clause 10(3), is consequential on that.

The final change is to clause 14. The first few lines of the clause show that all the draconian powers that the Labour Government want to take over local authorities are about the failure of best value. The Government appear to have no confidence in the idea, because in clause 14 they admit that it will not work. If it does not work, they want a range of powers for the Secretary of State. The Minister is looking puzzled, and well he should. The clause is an admission that the Government interference will be because of failure. The new clause is about success. Clause 14 should not apply to a council that succeeds and avoids all the traps that are listed. Why should those traps apply to a council that is behaving itself? So why is the Minister about to urge his colleagues to oppose a sensible new clause?

All 12 changes would only introduce a time limit. If a council co-operates with how the Government want it to behave, the provisions in the Bill need not apply. If councils behave, the draconian powers that the Government are taking need not apply to them. We are not saying that they should cease to apply immediately; we are giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. We are saying, "Let us be reasonable. It is a powerful argument, but let us allow three years to go by to make absolutely certain that the councils concerned really are genuine, are delivering what the Government want and are being effective in respect of the tests that are being applied. Only after three years should the powers elapse."

The case is overwhelming. New clause 5 would do only one thing. In the case of good local government, new clause 5 would hand power back to the people and if my memory serves me correctly, that was in the Labour party manifesto.

Mr. Fallon

I support new clause 5. On first inspection, it is a worthwhile improvement to the Bill. However, it was not until, with rather deceptive ingenuity, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) unveiled the arguments behind it that the House began to appreciate exactly how important it is.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) first elucidated the fact that the definition of powers in line 4 of the new clause is not the same as those listed in lines 1 and 2. The careful and gradual way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex advanced the merits of the new clause first alerted us to its wider implications.

Above all, the new clause rejects intervention. It rejects capping—and prevents it from being exercised after three years although it is not referred to specifically in the first two lines. Nor does it allow any of the other interventionist powers to be exercised after three years. I did not like capping when the previous Government introduced it. Nor do I like the range of interventionist powers that have been taken under the Bill. One might well ask why we would like an override power. In the final analysis an override power is subject to parliamentary approval and to an affirmative resolution. The Minister knows that to take that power he has to come to the House, make his case, approach the business managers and seek time.

New clause 5 has two overriding merits. First, it gives councils an incentive. The three-year period gives councils the incentive to get clear of the Secretary of State and the Department and to stay clear of them. That is a good thing; it strengthens local democracy and gives better performing councils something to aim for. They know that if they can get through three years without those particular powers having to be exercised, they cannot be exercised unless the override power is invoked. That is a very good incentive for local authorities to drive up their efficiency and improve the performance of the services that they deliver.

Secondly, the new clause introduces into local government legislation, perhaps for the first time, the concept of sunsetting. If, in the review of local government policy that he is clearly undertaking and the rethink to which he has referred, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is further minded to look again at the technique of sunsetting—a regulatory power that will simply disappear if it is not used after three years—that will be most welcome. This technique is used extensively in other countries, such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hall.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Fallon

In our review of local government legislation and regulation, that system ought to be widely copied elsewhere.

The Government have set three Es as a test of best value, but these are superseded by a fourth. The Government talk of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To that, those of us who defend local government add a fourth E—election. It is the key to the three-year period that each council knows that it must face the electorate, who in the end are the best judge of best value. That is why the borough council in Wandsworth, under Conservative control, was continually re-elected. That is why the loopy Liberal Democrat council in Tunbridge Wells was thrown out last May. In the end, the electorate—and not the Secretary of State or parliamentary orders—will determine what best value is.

Adding the new clause to the Bill will strengthen it. It will give councils a genuine incentive—way beyond the auditors who will troop through the town halls—to get free of central Government, to escape the interventionist powers, to improve their performance and to subject that performance to the ultimate test—the test of their electorate.

Mr. Forth

Perhaps I am out of sorts today, but I am yet to be persuaded of the virtues of the new clause—despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). In spite of what many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, I am not sure that the drafting of the new clause stands very much scrutiny. I have a number of questions on the new clause for my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who is to reply to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench.

I will refer later to the question of why should the Secretary of State not exercise the powers, which a number of my hon. Friends have touched on. My first point arises from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), and concerns the basis of the selection of clauses referred to in the new clause.

The new clause mentions clauses 5(2), 5(4) and 6(2) which are self-explanatory, but I am puzzled by the selection of the elements of clause 7. More than that, I want to query why clause 7 is included at all. Clauses 5 and 6 refer explicitly to the Secretary of State, and deal with eventualities where the Secretary of State does not invoke his powers, which therefore lapse after three years. Logically, clauses 5(2), 5(4) and 6(2) refer to the Secretary of State.

Clause 7 refers to: A performance plan published by a best value authority … shall be audited by the authority's auditor. The Secretary of State is not mentioned at all. I am perplexed, because clause 7 does not refer to anything that the Secretary of State does.

Mr. Jenkin

The powers in clause 7(4)(c) refer to clause 6, which says that the Secretary of State will specify matters which an authority must include in a plan for a financial year". If the Secretary of State does not do that, clause 7(4)(c) and (e) are redundant. As for clause 7(4)(f), we do not want the Secretary of State to be recommended to take action under clause 14 when he no longer has any powers, assuming that they fall away.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to help, but I am not quite there yet, because clause 7(4) says: In relation to an authority's performance plan the auditor shall issue a report". It mentions the auditor, not the Secretary of State, so I cannot see how the initial part of the new clause will apply and why clause 7 is mentioned at all.

Mr. Jenkin

I will give my right hon. Friend an example. Suppose that, in the three-year period, the auditor issued a report recommending intervention by the Secretary of State under clause 14, that recommendation would be enough under the new clause to suspend the passage of the three years towards the eclipse of the powers, and the period would have to start again.

Mr. Forth

I will take my hon. Friend's word for it. Perhaps when I reflect later on what he has said, I will see that he has explained the matter satisfactorily.

My next problem with the wording of the new clause concerns our old friends "and" and "or". As I read it, the provision would come into effect only if absolutely all the powers mentioned are not exercised by the Secretary of State. That is an excessive limitation. I would like £1 for every time that I have heard the word "sunset" in this debate, but the sun will never set if my interpretation of the new clause is correct. The likelihood of the Secretary of State failing to exercise even one of the powers is extremely small, even though, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the circumstances in which he failed to act would be when a very successful local authority was doing everything that it should.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex may have answered my next question in his excellent introduction to this debate. The new clause says that the powers in this Act shall only be exercised in certain circumstances. I gather that to mean all the powers in the Act. My hon. Friend made an excellent analysis of the capping, pseudo-capping, perhaps-capping, modern-capping or focus-capping—whatever the new phrase is that we are supposed to use—which was helpful because it gave us an idea of the scope of the new clause, which some of us at first thought was rather limited. We now find to our pleasant surprise that it is very wide ranging indeed and would have a cataclysmic effect were it ever implemented.

Subsection (2) would require that a draft should be laid before, and approved by resolution, of each House of Parliament. That provision is familiar, but I wonder whether any difficulties are envisaged in relation to reform of the other place. We are in new territory, and none of us knows what effect reform will have.

Until now, we could be confident of provisions such as these. We have seen them all before, and they are perfectly standard. It is even reassuring, constitutionally, that a measure of such importance requires approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. The present size of the Government' s majority makes the outcome of a vote in the House of Commons fairly predictable, though only for the present. We may think that we know how the other place would react at present, but we cannot predict anything given the uncertainty around the reform proposals for that other place.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex may wish to comment on that element of unpredictability as it could have a fundamental effect on whether the measure could be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

I apologise for giving such a detailed analysis. My hon. Friend has partly reassured me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne may reassure me further when he sums up. If the Minister inexplicably suggests that he will not accept the excellent new clause 5, we will then be fully motivated to support it in a Division.

Mr. Waterson

I am delighted to speak at the end of an important and useful debate on a sunset provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) explained, new clause 5 proposes that the powers listed in the clause—all of them, which may reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—should cease to have effect if the Secretary of State does not have recourse to them for a period of three consecutive years.

A council that consistently performed well and kept its council tax within limits deemed by the Government to be reasonable would be allowed the freedom to set its own budget and to determine its own strategy for improving services. It would remain liable to reimposition of the Bill's powers if Parliament deemed it necessary, and the sword of Damocles that the Bill hangs over the councils would provide a strong incentive to ensure that they did their utmost to act responsibly and in the interests of their communities. That would be a welcome first step towards ending bureaucratic central controls on local government.

Every Government regrets capping powers. No Government embraces those powers with enthusiasm. However, the Labour Government went out of their way when they were in opposition to oppose crude and universal capping, which is one of the powers mentioned in new clause 5. The Local Government Association, among others, has backed a time limit on the Bill's capping scheme, and we have heard valuable speeches on that theme this evening. Alas, it is remarkable that not a single speech came from those on the Government Benches. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex rightly quoted extensively from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when describing how we as a party were re-assessing and recalibrating our policies towards local government and how we wanted to see local government in the future much freer to make its own decisions and to strive in its own way for excellence. We wish to move away from capping in any shape or form.

10.15 pm

The dreadful truth has dawned on much of local government that they were taken in by this Government when they were in opposition. The Government are taking extreme and draconian powers according to any view of them, and they should have a sunset or sell-by date. A similar point was made by an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in a powerful contribution based on his extensive experience, talked about whether these powers were powers in perpetuity. He asked whether we could test the Government's real determination not to reach for these extensive powers in the future and he mentioned a choice between a nirvana for local government and what he called the open prison of the provisions in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) welcomed new clause 5 on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, which made me question how good an idea it was. I have overcome that natural reluctance and their support—like support from anywhere—is welcome. I trust that they will join us in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Gentleman described the powers proposed by the Government as invidious. I know that he chooses his words carefully and that is not too extreme a word to use in this context.

We heard a characteristically intellectually powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He has the intellect to plumb the deep subtleties of new clause 5, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. With his usual eloquence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset demonstrated why it matters to have a time limit and a life put on these powers. He revealed some excellent research into other examples through parliamentary history and traced the history of a crucially relevant parliamentary doctrine, all too sadly lost sight of in these careless times.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), from his vast experience, made the historical link between compulsory competitive tendering and best value, making the crucial point that those are not two antipathetic concepts. In many ways, one has grown out of the other. Best value would not be a starter without the hard work put into CCT. He described new clause 5 as simplicity itself, but I would not go quite that far.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) also talked of the benefits of CCT and the possibility of the Government coming back after three years to obtain the powers, if any councils did start to misbehave. Therefore—and this is the key point of the debate—the onus must be on the Minister to justify why the Government cannot accept new clause 5. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke from his impressive background in local government and he was right to point out the yawning gap in this debate between rhetoric and reality. He questioned whether the power was really necessary in perpetuity when a council is behaving itself.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) spoke persuasively about the regulatory technique in the new clause and its use in other jurisdictions. We heard a characteristic contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who queried the exact extent of the powers and talked of problems in the wording. He is right to regard the phrase the powers in this Act as encompassing not only the clauses specifically referred to in new clause 5 but to all the powers contained in the Bill. If the Minister is bursting to tell the House that his advice was otherwise and that the new clause will not have the effect that is claimed for it, does he at least accept the principle behind it?

To sum up, we want to know the Government's real intentions in respect of the substantial powers that the Secretary of State is gathering to himself. As I have said, the onus must be on the Minister to justify the need for those powers not to be time limited. As we have seen, it is still possible for the Government to come back to the House in the future to renew those powers, if they feel that to be necessary, but for them to maintain that they need those powers in perpetuity, despite pious promises that they will not use them unless absolutely necessary, is another example of the nanny state gone mad.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)

Like the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), I find it difficult to respond to new clause 4, not least because, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) correctly pointed out—[Interruption.]

Mr. Wilshire

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we debating new clause 5, on which I was speaking, or new clause 4 as the Minister has just said?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are definitely debating new clause 5 and have been doing so for the past two hours.

Mr. Meale

To return to what I was saying, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst correctly identified that new clause 5 was incorrectly drafted. There is no doubt about that. If hon. Members have any doubts on the matter, I point out to them that the reference in the new clause to the Secretary of State's powers under clause 7(4b), (4c) and (4f) in fact relates to duties on the best value auditor. Similarly, although the new clause states that clause 7(5c) and clause 9(5) refer to the powers of the Secretary of State, those clauses actually set out the duties of best value auditors and best value auditing respectively, but never mind.

Undoubtedly, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was able to identify that the new clause was poorly drafted because of his great experience during nine years as a member of the previous Administration. However, we understood the gist of what Conservative Members were trying to achieve in new clause 5 because of its reference to the Secretary of State's powers in clauses 5, 6, 10 and 14; that gave us sufficient clues as to their intentions.

New clause 5 seems to raise two issues. The first is that of parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the powers in the Bill. We have dealt with that on several occasions, but shall do so again. The second issue is that of the regularity of use of powers, where the Opposition's objectives are more difficult to fathom.

In respect of parliamentary scrutiny, once again the Opposition are trying to make one approach fit all, in the time-honoured tradition of compulsory competitive tendering, which was honoured in no other way. They seem to want to impose affirmative scrutiny on the use of almost all powers, whether they are powers of intervention, the conferring of new powers or technical amendments to performance indicators. A number of hon. Members hold particular views on CCT, and we accept that under CCT there were some advantages in terms of efficiency. However, lowest cost, inflexibility, evasion and conflict have hampered good management and good quality services, and best value will sort that out. We reject the approach that the Opposition have set out in the new clauses and amendments that they have tabled.

Throughout, we have taken an approach to scrutiny that is based on proportionality, whereby the powers in the Bill that affect other legislation or widen the scope of best value attract the most rigorous scrutiny. By the same token, the approach to amendments to the internal framework for performance indicators, reviews and plans is based on consultation with the practitioners, such as best value authorities and the Audit Commission. That flexible and thoughtful approach contrasts with the knee-jerk reaction displayed by Conservative Members.

The notion that any attempt to use order-making powers in respect of a specific authority should be governed by the length of the period that has elapsed since the powers were previously used, or by whether the powers have been used at all, is bizarre. I can understand why Conservative Members might be concerned about the possibility of vindictive or malicious targeting of particular authorities when there is a change of political control over those authorities or when there is a change of Government, but are they seriously advocating that the use of the Secretary of State's powers to direct inspectors or to intervene in cases of serious failure should be restricted in the way they suggest?

Mr. Jenkin

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meale

No. I have sat for more than five hours listening to a variety of speeches that have gone far wider than the scope of the amendments.

Failure is failure, no matter where or when it occurs—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister must be heard, but there is far too much background noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.

Mr. Meale

To repeat, failure is failure, no matter where or when it occurs. Ministers must have the opportunity to tackle it swiftly and decisively, so we must reject arbitrary restrictions such as those set out in the new clause on the Secretary of State's freedom to act. Similarly, where aspects of the framework, such as the requirements for reviews of plans, need to be adjusted to take account of how best practice is evolving, the sort of mechanistic rules set out in the amendment would rule out any form of sensible or helpful action.

Amendment No. 83 would have the effect of making any direction given as a result of the recommendation of a best value inspector to an authority that had not received a direction in the previous three years conditional on an order being laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That would impose unacceptable time restraints on the ability of the Secretary of State to react to the problems that had led to the recommendation being made.

It is normal for the Secretary of State to have a certain degree of discretion in exercising his role of enforcement, and to subject that discretion to parliamentary scrutiny would be an overreaction. Where a direction has been recommended and an independent inspector has considered the situation, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to judge the facts and any representation made by the authority before preparing a direction. He will also have the power, if he believes it necessary, to direct that a local inquiry be held to ascertain the views of local people on the matter in question.

Where intervention is recommended to address a serious or persistent failure in the delivery of services, delay might lead to vulnerable groups being left unprotected and to problems worsening if—

Sir Paul Beresford

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am curious as to whether the Minister is answering the debate on the right clause, because the subject that he is now describing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister is in perfect order. If he had been otherwise, I would have told him so.

Mr. Meale

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to the difficulties that delay due to a requirement for parliamentary consent would cause to organisations, especially voluntary ones, whose response to a failure was hampered.

The new clause and the amendment may be honestly meant, but I think a few honest mistakes were made in their drafting. We believe they are wrongly tuned and inadvisable. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause. If they will not, I must urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 330.

Division N0.126[	[10.30.pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Allan, Richard	Gibb, Nick
Amess, David	Gill, Christopher
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Gray, James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Green, Damian
Baker, Norman	Greenway, John
Baldry, Tony	Grieve, Dominic
Ballard, Jackie	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Beggs, Roy	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Hammond, Philip
Bercow, John	Hawkins, Nick
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hayes, John
Blunt, Crispin	Heald, Oliver
Body, Sir Richard	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Boswell, Tim	Hogg, RI Hon Douglas
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Horam, John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Brake, Tom	Hunter, Andrew
Brazier, Julian	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Jenkin, Bernard
Browning, Mrs Angela	Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Keetch, Paul
Burnett, John	Key, Robert
Bums, Simon	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Burstow, Paul	Kirkwood, Archy
Butterfill, John	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Lansley, Andrew
	Leigh, Edward
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Letwin, Oliver
	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Chidgey, David	Lidington, David
Chope, Christopher	Livsey, Richard
Clappison, James	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Loughton, Tim
Collins, Tim	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cran, James	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Curry, Rt Hon David	McLoughlin, Patrick
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Madel, Sir David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Malins, Humfrey
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)	Mates, Michael
	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	May, Mrs Theresa
Duncan, Alan	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Duncan Smith, lain	Moore, Michael
Faber, David	Moss, Malcolm
Fabricant, Michael	Nicholls, Patrick
Fallon, Michael	Oaten, Mark
Flight, Howard	Öpik, Lembit
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Ottaway, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)	Page, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Paice, James
Fraser, Christopher	Prior, David
Gamier, Edward	Randall, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John	Tredinnick, David
Robathan, Andrew	Trend, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Tyler, Paul
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Tyrie, Andrew
Ross, William (E Lond'y)	Viggers, Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)	Walter, Robert
Ruffley, David	Wardle, Charles
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Waterson, Nigel
St Aubyn, Nick	Webb, Steve
Sanders, Adrian	Wells, Bowen
Shepherd, Richard	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)	Whittingdale, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Willetts, David
Spelman, Mrs Caroline	Willis, Phil
Spicer, Sir Michael	Wilshire, David
Spring, Richard	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Steen, Anthony	Woodward, Shaun
Streeter, Gary	Yeo, Tim
Stunell, Andrew	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Mrs. Eleanor Laing and
Taylor, Sir Teddy	Mr. Stephen Day.

NOES
Ainger, Nick	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Clark, Dr Lynda
Allen, Graham	(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Atkins, Charlotte	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Austin, John	Clelland, David
Banks, Tony	Clwyd, Ann
Barnes, Harry	Coaker, Vernon
Barron, Kevin	Coffey, Ms Ann
Battle, John	Cohen, Harry
Bayley, Hugh	Coleman, Iain
Beard, Nigel	Colman, Tony
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Connarty, Michael
Begg, Miss Anne	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Corbett, Robin
Bennett, Andrew F	Corbyn, Jeremy
Benton, Joe	Corston, Ms Jean
Bermingham, Gerald	Cranston, Ross
Berry, Roger	Crausby, David
Best, Harold	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Betts, Clive	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Blackman, Liz	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Blears, Ms Hazel	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Blizzard, Bob	(Copeland)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Borrow, David	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Dalyell, Tam
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Bradshaw, Ben	Darvill, Keith
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Davidson, Ian
Browne, Desmond	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Buck, Ms Karen	Dawson, Hilton
Burden, Richard	Dean, Mrs Janet
Burgon, Colin	Denham, John
Butler, Mrs Christine	Dismore, Andrew
Cabom, Richard	Dobbin, Jim
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Donohoe, Brian H
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Doran, Frank
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Dowd, Jim
Cann, Jamie	Drew, David
Caplin, Ivor	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Casale, Roger	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Caton, Martin	Edwards, Huw
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Efford, Clive
Chaytor, David	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Clapham, Michael	Ennis, Jeff

Etherington, Bill	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Fisher, Mark	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Fitzsimons, Lorna	Kemp, Fraser
Flint, Caroline	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Flynn, Paul	Khabra, Piara S
Follett, Barbara	Kidney, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Foulkes, George	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Fyfe, Maria	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Galbraith, Sam	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Galloway, George	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Gapes, Mike	Laxton, Bob
Gardiner, Barry	Lepper, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Leslie, Christopher
Gerrard, Neil	Levitt, Tom
Gibson, Dr Ian	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Godman, Dr Norman A	Livingstone, Ken
Godsiff, Roger	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Goggins, Paul	Lock, David
Golding, Mrs Llin	Love, Andrew
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	McAllion, John
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McAvoy, Thomas
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McCabe, Steve
Grocott, Bruce	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Grogan, John	McDonagh, Siobhain
Hain, Peter	Macdonald, Calum
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McDonnell, John
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	McFall, John
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Mclsaac, Shona
Hanson, David	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	Mackinlay, Andrew
Healey, John	MacShane, Denis
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	McWalter, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen	McWilliam, John
Heppell, John	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hesford, Stephen	Mallaber, Judy
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Hill, Keith	Marek, Dr John
Hinchliffe, David	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hoey, Kate	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Home Robertson, John	Martlew, Eric
Hood, Jimmy	Maxton, John
Hoon, Geoffrey	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hope, Phil	Meale, Alan
Hopkins, Kelvin	Merron, Gillian
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Howells, Dr Kim	Miller, Andrew
Hoyle, Lindsay	Mitchell, Austin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Humble, Mrs Joan	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hurst. Alan	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Hutton, John	Morley, Elliot
Iddon, Dr Brian	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Illsley, Eric	Mountford, Kali
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Mudie, George
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Mullin, Chris
Jamieson, David	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Norris, Dan
(Welwyn Hatfield)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Olner, Bill
Jones, Ms Jenny	O'Neill, Martin
(Wolverh'ton SW)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Palmer, Dr Nick
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Pearson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pendry, Tom
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Perham, Ms Linda
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pickthall. Colin
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pike, Peter L

Plaskitt, James	Stevenson, George
Pollard, Kerry	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Pond, Chris	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Pound, Stephen	Stinchcombe, Paul
Powell, Sir Raymond	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Stringer, Graham
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Primarolo, Dawn	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Prosser, Gwyn	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Purchase, Ken
Quinn, Lawrie	Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Radice, Giles	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Rammell, Bill	Temple-Morris, Peter
Rapson, Syd	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Raynsford, Nick	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Timms, Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Tipping, Paddy
Rooney, Terry	Todd, Manic
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Touhig, Don
Rowlands, Ted	Trickett, Jon
Roy Frank	Truswell, Paul
Ruane Chris	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Ruddock Joan	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Ryan, Ms Joan	Vaz, Keith
Savidge, Malcolm	Ward, Ms Claire
Sawford Phil,	Wareing, Robert N
Sedgemore, Brian	Watts, David
	White,Brian
Shaw, Jonathan	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wicks, Malcolm
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Singh, Marsha
Skinner, Dennis	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Wills, Michael
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Winnick, David
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
	Woolas, Phil
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Snape, Peter	Wyatt, Derek
Soley, Clive
Squire, Ms Rachel	Tellers for the Noes:
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Mr. Greg Pope and
Steinberg, Gerry	Mrs. Anne McGuire

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

10.45 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

In view not only of the lack of progress on the Bill, but of the Opposition's unwillingness even to discuss the time required for it, tomorrow's business will now be an allocation of time motion, followed by the remaining stages of the Local Government Bill. The business previously announced for tomorrow will now be taken at a later date.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The question before the House is debatable and I assume that the Leader of the House has made that statement as part of the debate.

Mr. Jenkin

A large number of amendments have yet to be discussed which raise serious matters about the Bill. We have yet to discuss the principle of capping and council tax benefit subsidy limitation; the application of best value duty to police authorities; the definition of the general duty of best value; the limiting of the Secretary of State's powers, requiring him to take independent advice; the widening of the duty to consult to include non-commercial organisation; and such vital matters as whether the Henry VIII clause should be limited in duration, as such clauses should be.

Serious constitutional issues are embodied in the Bill, it being the most draconian local government Bill that the House has ever seen. We are prepared to put in the time tonight to discuss these matters. [Interruption.] The question is why the Government would prefer to go home rather than do the work that they were elected to do.

We know what the Government want. They want a soft life. They want to go early to bed with their teddy bears and hot milk instead of doing the job for which they were elected. The Government will get the Bill through by guillotining further consideration of these matters. Many important issues that we wish to discuss may not be discussed. No doubt the Government's sittings motion will put the remaining Government business first in the order of consideration and there will be no further discussion of the matters that we regard as important. The Government will then regard that as sufficient consideration of the Bill.

There is time tonight to discuss these matters, but the Government would prefer to go to bed. That is a dereliction of their duty and an arrogant stifling of democratic debate in the House. I therefore oppose the motion.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

Some of us, as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, may be going home to our teddy bears tonight, but British troops may be in the air to carry out Government policy and may die in the process. Surely it is inappropriate that the House of Commons should continue with this sort of saga during the night when important issues are at stake.

The plain fact is, as I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), that if the Government want the Bill they will get it. They have the majority to do so. No amount of sitting here tonight will make any difference to that.

Surely, as the country approaches war, it would wrong of the House to be giving such a display of party politics.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

Our next discussion would have been about democracy in local government and how local people might have decided what they wanted to do with their own local authority. It is very serious that so many Labour Members shouted when it was suggested that we should discuss these serious matters one after another. It is all very well for the Leader of the House, who never answered a question seriously when she was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, either because she could not or—

Mrs. Beckett

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer

No, I am not giving way. The right hon. Lady never answered a question.

Mrs. Beckett

I thought that I should correct the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friends were saying, "You have not been here all evening, so why are you concerned?"

Mr. Gummer

The right hon. Lady showed so much courtesy to the House that she did not even allow any discussion before getting to her feet to say that she was not having any more debate. She is not in a position to teach anyone anything, because she was never willing to answer any questions when she was in charge of a Department.

We are discussing a serious matter and we wish to go on to discuss democracy in local authorities. Year after year after year, the right hon. Lady complained in the House if anyone suggested that any decision should be made that was contrary to the wishes of Labour-controlled local authorities. I suggest that Labour Members want to introduce the various draconian measures that are before the House because they know that they will not control many local authorities in the future. They will therefore not come into conflict with Labour local authorities in the coming months and years.

I say to the right hon. Lady, if she is listening, that there is no need for draconian rules when local authorities are run by Conservatives because we are, by nature, careful with ratepayers' money. She and her hon. Friends are making a great mistake: they believe that they have to make such decisions, because otherwise they will be faced with recalcitrant authorities over which they do not have control.

We have given Labour Members a way out, but it is worrying that they will not take it. That way out is giving local people the right to decide for themselves whether they want an increase above that which the Government are willing to give them. That is what we would have discussed. The proposed Adjournment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The question before us is narrowly drawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to widen it too far. Would he please return to discussing the question before us?

Mr. Gummer

The motion before the House stops us discussing democracy in local government. This House is supposed to be the guardian of democracy.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has affronted the House by saying that we should not be discussing democracy because of what might be happening over Kosovo? Are not we entering into a dispute in Kosovo for the sake of democracy? During the second world war, did not such discussions continue? The House did not go into abeyance for five years. The House of Commons—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This intervention is far too long.

Mr. Gummer

I will not follow that line because of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is all very well for Labour Members to believe that this is a convenient time at which to point out that, because of their majority, they can make such decisions. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—who is my pair and who kindly described me in such terms—that it is true that the Government could carry through any measure they liked. However, one of the things that the Government, particularly the Leader of the House, should learn is that power also demands responsibility, and that continually using the power of the majority to avoid discussing issues that matter to minorities is the plea of those who do not believe in democracy.

The Leader of the House would do her side much more good if, instead of smiling away on the Front Bench, she seriously asked herself whether local authorities were not important enough for the debate to continue, if necessary, in government time tomorrow and the day after. If she would give us that open-ended commitment, we would be happy to go home now and to continue tomorrow and the day after. In the meantime, she must accept that the House is the place where those issues should and need to be debated, because that is what democracy is about.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the position of Leader of the House is more than that of a Minister? The Leader of the House has an obligation to the House as a whole.

Mr. Gummer

I could emphasise that, but the present Leader of the House has rarely displayed that part of her role. I would like her to do so, but I have not so far seen it. Therefore, rather than appeal to that part of her role, I appeal to something that should be deep in her heart: a commitment to democracy. This is about local government. As. I think, the longest-serving local government Minister in the House, I do not remember not being willing to listen to her on democracy in local government. I sat through her speeches time and again.

I was not terribly well informed as a result of what the Leader of the House said, but as Leader of the House she should not have got up as she did, not even allowing time to discuss whether we should have the motion. She insisted on pushing her guillotine motion because she is after no debate, no discussion, no democracy. The fact that she has done that just before the debate on a new clause to open up local government to local democracy, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is a great sadness.

I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to say that, in her position as Leader of the House, the right hon. Lady should think again, perhaps show the courtesy that would come well from a party that claims to believe in democracy, and allow time for the matter to be debated properly.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

About 32 hon. Members have spoken in the debate so far: five have been called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the other 27 or 28 have been talking non-stop on the Labour Back Benches. It is clear that they want to contribute to what is going on.

It would be useful to know whether the Leader of the House believes that her statement at the beginning of the debate was supposed to be a substitute for the business statement that she may want to make tomorrow, changing the business for tomorrow. Was it in accordance with precedence? Was her contribution to the debate a substitute for the business statement, on which she would normally expect to be questioned? If she is trying to avoid questioning, it compounds the offence of the way the Government have tried to curtail today's debate.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has made a valuable point. It does not deal with the threatened guillotine. In practice, the issue being debated is not just whether the House adjourns tonight, which is a debatable motion, but whether the Government are right to say, at the first whiff of discussion in the House of Commons, "We want to drop the guillotine on the debate."

Local government had to face the Government consultation, where the Government said that it could not argue for the present system—it could have any type of democracy except what this country had been used to. I believe that the House would be right to debate the issue for an hour and a half, or two and a half hours. I believe that, if the Leader of the House, who seems to be absent from the Chamber—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"]—is forced to make another business statement tomorrow, there will be the possibility of another hour of questions and answers. I will not anticipate points of order, but it strikes me that the Leader of the House would have been better advised to listen to the advice of her Whips. She would have done better to allow tonight's debate to continue in an even-tempered way, and, if necessary, to allocate more time to the Report stage.

11 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

Is it not extraordinary that, half an hour after the moving of the business motion at 10 pm, a motion was moved to curtail the debate?

Mr. Bottomley

It may try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I explain how that is consistent with a number of other actions taken by the present Government; but the key point for the House of Commons is that the debate could have continued until midnight, or slightly later. The only reason for the threat issued by the Leader of the House is the fact that the Government do not want the House to discuss, in detail, alternatives to their plans for local government. That will be noted in Worthing, in Arun district council and in West Sussex county council. [Interruption.] The laughter of Labour Members will be seen in parallel with the failure of their party to put up candidates in local government by-elections on the south coast.

The party that claims to govern for the nation is not playing its part in competition for elections to local government throughout the country. I believe that the party will be seen through, that as and when the consequences of its iron rule here are noted it will pay the penalty in local government, and that, whatever it does with the Bill, it will regret its action tonight. It is undemocratic and wrong.

Mr. Sanders

Liberal Democrats understand the frustration that the Government must feel. Certainly we could have made far more progress than we have made but for the filibustering tendencies of certain Conservative Members. Members of the official Opposition raised many important points—although some took a long time over it—but many more still need to be raised.

Mr. Fabricant

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member was filibustering, would that not be ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think that the hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.

Mr. Sanders

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his filibustering intervention.

Many important facets of the Bill still need to be debated. The Bill alters the relationship between local government and central Government in what we consider to be an adverse way. It confers powers on the Secretary of State that previously resided with the House, or with local government. We have yet to debate the important amendments on the principle of capping. Labour Members have spent the last 18 years criticising the Conservatives in that connection, but they may not now be able to hear the debate in full tomorrow.

The application of best value duty to police and other authorities,the definition of the general duty of best value, the limitation to the Secretary of State's powers of requiring him to take independent advice and the proposal to limit the duration of the Henry VIII clause are all important issues, but what the Leader of the House has done has a further disadvantage: it has prevented Liberal Democrats from debating their amendments, and we may not now have the time that we would otherwise have had to debate them.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made an important point. We have forces on their way overseas on our behalf. If we cannot debate the best value provisions, perhaps the House should sit through the night to debate that matter.

Mr. Hogg

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a perfectly sound point about the desirability of debating events in Kosovo. Is not the proper action for the House to convene tomorrow to debate policy towards the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo, and to debate this matter tonight?

Mr. Sanders

I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as do other Liberal Democrat Members, who will vote against the motion. I have made my point. This is a very sad day for democracy, and particularly for local democracy. The Bill is an attack on the ballot box in local councils and on people's right to determine who controls their council—local councillors or central Government.

Mr. Forth

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), perhaps inadvertently, let the cat out of the bag. He said words to the effect—I cannot quote him exactly—of, "The Government will get their Bill anyway—so what's the point in debating it?"

Mr. Field

rose—

Mr. Forth

rose—

Mr. Forth

He will correct me.

Mr. Field

I said that merely on the basis of my experience as an hon. Member for 20 years, watching the Conservative party in government.

Mr. Forth

Whatever the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's comment, it revealed what is in the minds of Labour Members—in the mind even of a distinguished and respected Government Back Bencher such as him. The gist of his remark was, "There's no point in continuing a rather futile debate on the Bill. Let's just get on with the Bill, because the Government have a huge majority." That seems to be the attitude of Government Back Benchers.

Mr. Hogg

Is there not another aspect to my right hon. Friend's comments—that, plainly, the Government Whips had caused their own Back Benchers to abstain from the debate, thus preventing a proper debate on the Bill?

Mr. Forth

Yes; regrettably, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. Hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate are very conscious of the fact that no Government Back Bencher spoke in it. Although that may be a matter for Government Back Benchers. I suspect—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—that it is much more likely to have been a matter for the Government Whips, ruthlessly suppressing any contribution by their own Back Benchers to the debate, and accusing Opposition Members of prolonging it.

Mr. Hogg

Is not the true position either that Government Back Benchers are not concerned about the issues involved in the Bill, or that a gagging order has been imposed on them to shut them up? It is one or the other. Which does my right hon. Friend think it is?

Mr. Forth

I regret to say that there were so few Government Back Benchers present for the debate that it was almost impossible to tell which it was—but I assume that it was their indifference to the Bill's substance, as they did not trouble even to come into the Chamber and listen to the debate, never mind participate in it.

Let us consider the point that we had reached in the debate. As many hon. Members will know, there are 12 groups of amendments for our consideration today. We have dealt with two of the groups, and the next group was intimately related to the one that we have just finished considering. The Government have, quite arbitrarily, interrupted the debate at a completely inappropriate time. It is bad enough that they are seeking to truncate the debate, but to do it in the manner that they chose shows that they are completely uninterested in the substance and nature of the amendments that were being debated.

Quite arbitrarily, the Government decided prematurely to finish off the debate. Moreover, as the Leader of the House said, the Government will tomorrow move a guillotine motion, further to restrict debate on this important Bill. That shows the Government's overall attitude to the House and to legislation, which is: no debate at all; no participation by Government Back Benchers; a minimum amount of time; arbitrary truncation of the debate, at a time when the House is perfectly capable of continuing with it; and—to add insult to injury—a provocative announcement by the Leader of the House that she will tomorrow move a guillotine motion further to reduce debate.

Mr. Fabricant

Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a delicious—if that is the right word—irony that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) can talk about the events in Kosovo, where British troops are going to fight the forces of fascism, which are engaged against democracy, when in this House, which is the seat of democracy, we hear that the Leader of the House is trying to curtail democratic debate? Is he not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point already this evening.

Mr. Forth

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I would not dream of arguing with his point. I accept it completely.

Are the Government going to allow proper consideration of legislation in this House and in another place? The Government's arbitrary and artificial restriction of debate here is bad enough, but what they are proposing to do in another place compounds that, because the Bill will not receive proper consideration there either.

Mr. Gummer

Will my right hon. Friend return to the point that he made about the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? There is a difference between saying that one side can always win a vote and being prepared to give time for a debate in case something should come out of it that would enable the Government to improve the Bill. That is an important element of democracy. Even if we lose the vote, such debates enable the Government to change their mind.

Mr. Forth

Ironically, as my right hon. Friend knows well, this evening we debated a group of amendments that arose from consideration in Committee. The Government came forward with amendments, they were duly debated and the House had an opportunity to decide whether to vote on them. In the middle of that process, we are going to be denied further proper consideration. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider what she has peremptorily and arbitrarily done this evening. Even now it is not too late. She has an opportunity during this brief debate to reconsider what she has done and to reflect on the damage that her decision will do to the image of a Government already tainted with the perception of arrogance, which is developing in the House and outside.

Mr. Hayes

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the damage to the Government's reputation will come not just from their treatment of the House, but from their contempt for local democracy? We are debating local democracy and good conduct in local government. Their reputation as the enemies of local government will be exacerbated by their behaviour tonight.

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about a triple whammy. The Government have mounted an assault on local government and democracy, on democratic processes in the House of Commons, and on the role that the other place has played for so long in terms of proper checks and balances against the Executive in our legislature. There is a triple threat to the traditions of democracy.

Mr. Hogg

May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is yet another dimension? The reluctance of Labour Back Benchers to protest about the truncation of debate is worrying. As Back Benchers, they should be concerned that they are not able to participate for longer tonight on such an important matter. Is that not a cause for concern to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Forth

This is where beds, teddy bears and cocoa come into the matter. I suspect that the Government 121212121212121 Whips felt unable to ask or require their Back Benchers to remain in the House of Commons—never mind participate in the debate—and in their desperate anxiety to get them off home as quickly as possible, the Government are prepared to sacrifice the proper, traditional processes of the House. It is completely unacceptable.

11.15 pm

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that what will not be understood in local government and outside the House in general is the inconsistency of the Government's approach? If they had intended to curtail debate this early, why did they move the 10 o'clock motion? What was the point of moving the 10 o'clock motion if they intended to close down the debate early?

Mr. Forth

I hope that when the Government reply to the debate—I hope they will do us that courtesy in order further to explain their motivation—they will answer my hon. Friend's valid point. It seems odd that, when only a few minutes earlier the Government had invoked a process that would prolong the debate, they then sought to close it down. We must have an explanation of what on earth is going on, what is in the Government's mind and, more particularly, an assurance that the Leader of the House will reconsider what she has done and seek to find simple, straightforward ways—in which I am sure we would co-operate—to allow the debate to continue properly, so that this important Bill receives proper consideration.

Mr. Wilshire

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a fair point. He had my sympathy and I was beginning to be persuaded by what he said until his final comment. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I wrote down what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech. He said that no amount of sitting here will make any difference. I assumed that he was aiming that comment at us, but on reflection, perhaps he was saying how he feels when he bothers to come to the House and make a speech as it makes no difference, given the way in which the Government have treated him.

Mr. Field

It is important that the hon. Gentleman distinguishes between my main speech and secondary interventions that I made in response to points arising from the debate. In public discourse such as this, it is useful to make a distinction between primary and secondary causes.

I was saying that tonight British troops may die carrying out Government policy and it is inappropriate for us to be squabbling in this way. A secondary point was that general elections decide who govern and roughly on what terms. The Opposition have a duty to conduct a five-year election campaign. Some Opposition Members have not realised that they have made their point and they continue to embroider it. I think that we should begin to draw conclusions from the debate and that we should adjourn in a sober mood, considering what is happening elsewhere.

Mr. Wilshire

I made exactly that point. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was making an effective point. He is the only Labour Member to say that he wants a discourse. That is approximately what we are saying; we would like a debate across the Chamber, but only the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is willing to do that.

Mr. Gummer

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been very much better had the Leader of the House got up and said that, owing to the serious nature of the announcement earlier, she would seek the adjournment of the House, that tomorrow we would discuss the issues of Kosovo and that she would provide proper time for the Local Government Bill. That would have come surprisingly—but extremely well—had she done it. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead did what she should have done, but it is a great pity that she did not do it. Perhaps she would like to do it now—or can a leopard not change its spots?

Mr. Wilshire

My right hon. Friend is correct. Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I am concerned that we may go home tonight in a fractious state. However, he is wrong to try to put the blame for that on the Opposition. Had he been here for the debate, he would have found that the House was in a good mood. There was nothing fractious about it until the Government Front Benchers caused all the trouble. If the right hon. Gentleman goes home unhappy tonight, he knows who to blame. It is not us—it is the Government Front Benchers.

Mr. Hayes

Is not it the case that when the 10 o'clock motion was moved, most Members would have anticipated that the House would have continued to debate the amendments for perhaps an hour or two—perhaps until 12.30 am? One might have expected the Government to close down the debate at that time. By then, several further speeches would have been made and more matters aired. Frankly, the Government would have had a considerably easier time persuading Members on both sides of the House that their case was justified.

Mr. Wilshire

My hon. Friend asks what I expected when I came here. I have a confession to make—I had begun to believe some of the rhetoric of Labour Front Benchers. I was becoming brainwashed into believing that they were a confident, self-assured team who knew how to run the country. I have discovered that, far from that, they are a bunch of wimps who, even with a huge majority, cannot cope with opposition. They do not have the slightest intention of allowing anyone to have a say on anything with which they disagree. After only five hours of debate—during which time most Labour Back Benchers could not even be bothered to come here—they have run out of arguments and patience, and they have no intention of listening further.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

Is not it the case that the Government do not wish to discuss capping in detail on the Floor of the House? Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Government imposed the smallest-ever cap on a local authority, despite saying at the general election that they would not cap at all? Last year, they put a cap on Derbyshire—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is a little wide of the matter before the House.

Mr. Wilshire

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a point that the Labour party is trying to stop us making by guillotining the debate. Not only has the debate been stopped after only five hours, it has been stopped after only two groups of amendments. That is all the Government can cope with. During the debates on the two groups, no Labour Back Bencher could be bothered to utter a word against our arguments. Opposition is something with which the Government cannot cope.

Mr. Fabricant

My hon. Friend has said that no Labour Back Benchers have contributed because they had no ideas to suggest to the debate. Was that the case, or was it that the Whips prevented them from doing so—thus demonstrating the inability of those on the Government Front Bench and the Whips to allow democracy in this House? [Interruption.]

Mr. Wilshire

Sadly, I do not have psychic powers, so I have no notion of what the Whips have been doing. However, having learned a bit about them in my first 11 years here, I would not be in the least surprised if my hon. Friend were correct. [Interruption.]

Mr. Gummer

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister for Local Government and Housing is very anxious to enter the debate? Has he noticed that she has hardly been able to contain herself during any speech from the Opposition? Will he point out to her that if we did not have the guillotine, she would have plenty of time to share with the House her obvious indignation?

Mr. Wilshire

Again, my right hon. Friend makes a fair point. Had he been here during our earlier debate, he would have noticed that, far from wanting to join in, the moment that things got difficult, the right hon. Lady got up and fled, probably to seek advice from spin doctors.

Mr. Hogg

If we face a guillotine motion tomorrow, is not the overwhelming probability that we will not have proper discussion of major parts of the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it is important that the other place should debate the Bill very extensively, so that it is properly discussed in one House at least?

Mr. Wilshire

That is absolutely right. I am sure that we can send a few copies of Hansard to the other place to make exactly that point.

Mr. Jenkin

One reason why Ministers fled may be that their names appeared on early-day motions condemning capping in the previous Parliament. Those involved include the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Wales. They said one thing in opposition and now they do another.

Mr. Wilshire

Exactly so.

The Government cannot cope with more than five hours of debate. [Interruption.] Does the Minister for Local Government and Housing want me to give way?

Ms Armstrong

indicated dissent.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fact that, for the first time this year, there are more than a dozen Conservative Members present in the Chamber. Yesterday, there were 12 here for the education statement. The average for Treasury, Trade and Industry and Education and Employment questions is fewer than 20. Here we have the fatuous fighting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Wilshire

If the hon. Gentleman cares to look around him, he will discover that there are more Conservative than Labour Members present. All his wimps have gone away again.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are trying to curtail the debate because the Minister for Local Government and Housing has been completely unable to answer Conservative Members' criticisms of her party?

Mr. Wilshire

Perhaps, having rushed out to seek help, the right hon. Lady could not find Alastair Campbell, so she came back with a guillotine.

After only five hours of debate and two groups of amendments and new clauses—a mere half an hour after moving the business motion to extend the debate—the Government decided that they had had enough, despite the fact that the business statement made it clear that we were to consider the Bill today. The Government gave ample notice of the debate and invited both Government and Opposition Members to consider the Bill and table amendments. It is a pity that only Opposition Members took up the invitation.

We could have had a constructive debate. The Government decided to move a business motion, for some tactical reason that is beyond me, but not because they genuinely wanted debate on what they said we would discuss today.

Mr. Hayes

The Adjournment motion was moved arbitrarily. The matters to be discussed later were at least as important as those that have been discussed, and arguably more so. The decision was based on no logic, common sense or sense of decency.

Mr. Wilshire

I agree that decency and logic are not hallmarks of the Government. They have made it clear that they do not want debate or amendments. They want to trample on democracy and deny us the chance to question what they have chosen to do.

11.30 pm

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton)

My hon. Friend reinforces all that I feel about tonight's debate. Do not the people in the country feel that we have an elective dictatorship that does not wish to hear debate on the important issues before us?

Mr. Wilshire

I agree wholeheartedly.

May I put a point directly to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which has been mentioned by others? I am not clear about what has happened tonight. The Government moved that we should cease further consideration of the Local Government Bill. That motion can be debated, it is being debated, and it will be voted on. However, the Leader of the House made what amounted to a statement. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, explained to us that she had spoken in our debate.

No doubt you will put me right if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I understand that there is a motion before us and that we are debating it. The Leader of the House has spoken in that debate. I am not an expert on Standing Orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Let us see whether I have a fair point or not. As I have learned during my 12 years in the House, business can be changed after it has been announced if a formal business statement is given to the House after the Government have given notice of that statement to the Speaker.

I do not understand whether we are debating a motion or a business statement. I do not believe that we can have both at the same time. When we come to vote on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you guide us as to whether there must follow a formal business statement on which we may ask questions before tomorrow's business can be changed?

Mr. Hogg

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House must make a formal business statement tomorrow, and we may look forward to asking her questions. At present, we are debating the motion, and very much enjoying it.

Mr. Wilshire

I should far rather have a ruling from the Chair, no matter how much I respect and like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Is it permissible for the Leader of the House to leap to her feet tomorrow afternoon to say that we will change the business two minutes later? Would not it be sensible to make a business statement now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let me make it clear that we are debating the question that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. All speeches so far have been on that question.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we take it from that clear ruling that the business of the House, printed overnight, cannot include what the Leader of the House purported to say at the beginning of her speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Government have total control of the Order Paper.

Mr. Gummer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is the custom of the House that changes to the business of the House should be presented formally, do you agree that it would be a change in that custom if we did not have an opportunity to know what that change was and to ask at least limited questions of the Leader of the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps it would be helpful if the Leader of the House responded.

Mrs. Beckett

I am happy to help, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly surprised that Opposition Members did not choose to ask questions when I made my earlier remarks. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) asked whether my action went outside the custom of the House. It did not.

Mr. Jenkin

It did.

Mrs. Beckett

That is not true. I well recall sitting in my office when I was shadow Leader of the House and seeing the then Leader of the House making a business statement on television without prior announcement.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I shall deal with that point. The Leader of the House could not have expected hon. Members to treat her remarks as a statement as she was simply contributing to the debate on the motion.

Mr. Hogg

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has now risen. I think that hon. Members will wish to treat what she has said as a statement that gives us the opportunity, before we resume our debate, to ask her some questions. Will you confirm that what she has said by way of an intervention is indeed a statement that gives rise to the process of questioning that statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not correct. The Leader of the House was simply contributing to the debate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You clearly gave a ruling that the Leader of the House's first remarks were part of the debate on whether the House should now adjourn. The Leader of the House, since then, has purported to say that she has made a business statement. Would it be possible, in the kindest way, to advise her that her remarks cannot have been a business statement as you had already ruled that her remarks were a contribution to the debate on the motion for adjournment. No one would want to accuse the Leader of the House of intentionally trying to challenge a ruling by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but until she clarifies the issue, that is the way it will read.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Leader of the House to confirm that once this debate is out of the way she plans to make a business statement in the normal way?

Mrs. Beckett

Not only is that my intention, but I have been willing to make it plain at any time this past hour. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We can clear this point up. Is the Leader of the House planning to make a statement at the conclusion of this debate?

Mrs. Beckett

At your convenience, and at the House's convenience, I shall make a statement when this debate is concluded. I accept, of course, your ruling, as I have accepted it from the beginning. I object strongly to the imputation by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), whatever his seat is. You properly ruled that I made a contribution to the debate and I have no quarrel with that. I also have no objection to being questioned on the business statement: indeed, I look forward to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The matter is entirely clear and we must now resume the debate.

Mr. Wilshire

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Things get better and better or worse and worse, depending on one's point of view. A few moments ago, we witnessed a demonstration from a bunch of wimps who are not prepared to debate anything and are not prepared to listen. We have now had a demonstration from a bunch of wimps who do not understand how to run the House of Commons, although they claim to be in charge of it.

Mr. Gummer

Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that for several moments while he was asking the Leader of the House whether she was going to make a statement, she shook her head, giving a clear indication that she would not. She now says to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that she never had any intention of not making that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That matter has been clarified and we must move on to the question before us.

Mr. Wilshire

I imagine that it may occur to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as we have not had a business statement, and the business has not yet changed, you might be tempted to ask how we can debate a change of business that has not taken place. Everything that has been said on the issue will need to be repeated after we have heard the business statement.

Mr. Hogg

One of the matters of concern to many hon. Members is that the Leader of the House proposes to make a business statement that clearly has not been discussed through the usual channels. Is not she abusing the courtesy and practice of the House and is not that a matter of grave concern to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Wilshire

It has been demonstrated that Government Front Benchers do not understand the conventions and courtesies of the House, so how can we expect anything different? The only other thing that we can now say is that perhaps the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges needs to investigate another leak. Before the business statement has been made, we know what will be in it. That is yet another leak from the Labour party.

I shall return to the subject of the Government's so far botched attempt to stop debate on the Bill. Before we got into this situation, we were discussing new clause 5. Our argument was that we wanted to return power to the people because the Bill would do the opposite. [Interruption.] We made no claim to that phrase; we borrowed it from the Labour party. Having had a debate about returning power to the people in local government, we are now having a debate about a Government who are prepared to deny power to Parliament. When the Government make their business statement shortly, they will guillotine a Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. We are not deciding what the Government or the Leader of the House are going to do; there is a motion before the House. We can worry about what the statement contains later on.

Mr. Wilshire

I accept that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was responding to the contribution to the debate made by the Leader of the House. However, I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The refusal to listen that we saw earlier and are seeing now reflects the use of the draconian powers that refuse to allow Parliament to sit late into the night. Those draconian powers against this Parliament, like the draconian powers against local government, show the Government in their true light; that is not a pretty sight.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

We are debating the progress of the Bill on Report; the Question is whether the House should adjourn and terminate debate tonight on this important Bill, having debated only two groups out of 12 groups of amendments and new clauses. According to the Leader of the House, many of the amendments that remain to be debated are likely to be subject to a guillotine, namely a timetabled debate.

I speak tonight because I served in local government and am proud of the role that local government plays in our democracy. Will the right hon. Lady guarantee to the House that she will allocate adequate time under the timetable motion for debate on the remaining 10 groups of amendments and new clauses, including the third group on the selection list? That group relates to capping—a most important matter, especially to those, like me, who served in local government. I am proud that one of the small number of achievements that I have notched up in my political career was when I won a Labour seat—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Until now, the hon. Gentleman has been perfectly in order, but he must not tell us about his political career. That is not the subject of the debate, interesting though it may be.

Mr. Winterton

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have the feeling that the House wants to hear about it.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Deputy Speaker does not want to hear about it and that is what is important.

Mr. Winterton

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that you were seeking to represent the best interests of the whole House. At no stage would I ever seek to overrule a decision of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, but I am trying to make the point that debate on the remaining 10 groups of amendments and new clauses could well be limited and that that might have an impact on the effectiveness of local government and on the democracy which is so important to local government.

Mr. Gummer

rose—

Mr. Winterton

I shall give way to my right hon. Friend in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is someone for whom I have the highest regard; for several years, I served under his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Social Security. He raised an issue about Kosovo and the fact that British service men and women—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. [Interruption.] I am making the rulings and Kosovo is not a matter—[Interruption.] I make the rulings when I am in the Chair, and I cannot decide on what went on before I took the Chair. I am ruling that the matter of Kosovo is out of order.

11.45 pm

Mr. Winterton

rose—

Mr. Gummer

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton

I shall in a moment, but I hope that when the Deputy Speaker has received the advice of the Clerk of the House, he might—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. I am acting on my own advice and I say to the hon. Gentleman that he should make no mention of Kosovo—it has nothing to do with the motion before us. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of this House as well as I do. Carry on.

Mr. Winterton

Let me say to the Deputy Speaker that I have been in for the whole of the debate, and the fact is that a Labour Member stood up and made a major part of his speech in respect of that matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes his seat.

Mr. Winterton

I will accept what the Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Winterton, you must accept my ruling and speak to the motion before us.

Mr. Winterton

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have already said that I am prepared to accept the ruling that you have made, however it will be interpreted. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

Mr. Gummer

I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment on an ugly rumour that has spun around the House that when debate on this motion has ended and the next motion is moved, the Government intend to limit speakers on the Government Benches to those—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Bradley

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 140.

Division No.127	[11.47 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Darvill, Keith
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Allen, Graham	Davidson, Ian
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Dawson, Hilton
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Dean, Mrs Janet
Atkins, Charlotte	Denham, John
Austin, John	Dismore, Andrew
Banks, Tony	Dobbin, Jim
Barnes, Harry	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Battle, John	Donohoe, Brian H
Bayley, Hugh	Doran, Frank
Beard, Nigel	Dowd, Jim
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Drew, David
Begg, Miss Anne	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Edwards, Huw
Bennett, Andrew F	Efford, Clive
Benton, Joe	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Best, Harold	Ennis, Jeff
Blackman, Liz	Etherington, Bill
Blears, Ms Hazel	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Blizzard, Bob	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Borrow, David	Flint, Caroline
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Flynn, Paul
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Follett, Barbara
Bradshaw, Ben	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Browne. Desmond	Foulkes, George
Buck, Ms Karen	Fyfe, Maria
Burden, Richard	Galloway, George
Burgon, Colin	Gardiner, Barry
Butler, Mrs Christine	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Caborn, Richard	Gerrard, Neil
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Gibson, Dr Ian
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyfh V)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Godsiff, Roger
Cann, Jamie	Goggins, Paul
Caplin, Ivor	Golding, Mrs Llin
Casale, Roger	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Caton, Martin	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Chaytor, David	Grogan, John
Clapham, Michael	Hain, Peter
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Hanson, David
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Healey, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clelland, David	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clwyd, Ann	Hepburn, Stephen
Coaker, Vernon	Heppell, John
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hesford, Stephen
Cohen, Harry	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Coleman, lain	Hill, Keith
Colman, Tony	Hinchiiffe, David
Connarty, Michael	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hoey, Kate
Corbett, Robin	Home Robertson, John
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hoon, Geoffrey
Corston, Ms Jean	Hope, Phil
Cousins, Jim	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cranston, Ross	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Crausby, David	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cryer, John (Homchurch)	Howells, Dr Kim
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Humble, Mrs Joan
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Hurst, Alan
Dalyell, Tam	Hutton, John
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Iddon, Dr Brian

Illsley, Eric	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Mountford, Kali
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Mudie, George
Jamieson, David	Mullin, Chris
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Naysmith, Dr Doug
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Norris, Dan
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, Ms Jenny	Olner, Bill
(Wolverh'ton SW)	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Palmer, Dr Nick
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pearson, Ian
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Pendry, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pickthall, Colin
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pike, Peter L
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Plaskitt, James
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Pond, Chris
Kemp, Fraser	Pope, Greg
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Pound, Stephen
Khabra, Piara S	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kidney, David	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kilfoyle, Peter	Primarolo, Dawn
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Prosser, Gwyn
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Purchase, Ken
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Quinn, Lawrie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Radice, Giles
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Rammell, Bill
Laxton, Bob	Rapson, Syd
Lepper, David	Raynsford, Nick
Leslie, Christopher	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Levitt, Tom	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Rooney, Terry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Livingstone, Ken	Rowlands, Ted
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Roy, Frank
Lock, David	Ruane, Chris
Love, Andrew	Ruddock, Joan
McAllion, John	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McAvoy, Thomas	Ryan, Ms Joan
McCabe, Steve	Savidge, Malcolm
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Sawford, Phil
McDonagh, Siobhain	Sedgemore, Brian
Macdonald, Calum	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McDonnell, John	Singh, Marsha
McFall, John	Skinner, Dennis
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Smith, Miss Geraldine
McNamara, Kevin	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
MacShane, Denis	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mactaggart, Fiona	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McWalter, Tony	Soley, Clive
McWilliam, John	Squire, Ms Rachel
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mallaber, Judy	Steinberg, Gerry
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter	Stevenson, George
Marek, Dr John	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Stinchcombe, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Stott, Roger
Martlew, Eric	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Maxton, John	Stringer, Graham
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Meale, Alan	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Merron, Gillian	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	(Dewsbury)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Miller, Andrew	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mitchell, Austin	Temple-Morris, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Moran, Ms Margaret	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Timms, Stephen
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Tipping, Paddy
Morley, Elliot	Todd, Mark

Touhig, Don	Williams. Rt Hon Alan
Trickett, Jon	(Swansea W)
Truswell, Paul	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)	Wills, Michael
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)	Winnick, David
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Vaz, Keith	Woolas, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Wareing, Robert N	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Watts, David
White, Brian	Tellers for the Ayes:
Whitehead, Dr Alan	Mr. Kevin Hughes and
Wicks, Malcolm	Mr. Clive Betts

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Allan, Richard	Hammond, Philip
Amess, David	Harvey, Nick
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Hayes, John
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Heald, Oliver
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Baker, Norman	Horam, John
Ballard, Jackie	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Blunt, Crispin	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Body, Sir Richard	Jenkin, Bernard
Boswell, Tim	Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Key, Robert
Brazier, Julian	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Lansley, Andrew
Browning, Mrs Angela	Leigh, Edward
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Letwin, Oliver
Burnett, John	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Burns, Simon	Lidington, David
Burstow, Paul	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Butterfill, John	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	Loughton, Tim
(NE Fife)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
	McLoughlin, Patrick
Chidgey, David	Malins, Humfrey
Chope, Christopher	Mates, Michael
Clappison, James	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	May, Mrs Theresa
Collins, Tim	Moore, Michael
Cran, James	Moss, Malcolm
Curry, Rt Hon David	Nicholls, Patrick
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Oaten, Mark
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Öpik, Lembit
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice& Howden)	Ottaway, Richard
	Page, Richard
Day, Stephen	Paice, James
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Prior, David
Duncan, Alan	Randall, John
Duncan Smith, Iain	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Faber, David	Rendel, David
Fabricant, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Fallon, Michael	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Flight, Howard	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Foster, Don (Bath)	Ruffley, David
Fraser, Christopher	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Garnier, Edward	St Aubyn, Nick
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Sanders, Adrian
Gibb, Nick	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gill. Christopher	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Spring, Richard
Gray, James	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Green, Damian	Steen, Anthony
Greenway, John	Streeter, Gary
Grieve, Dominic	Stunell, Andrew
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)	Wilkinson, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Willetts, David
Tredinnick, David	Willis, Phil
Trend, Michael	Wilshire, David
Tyne, Andrew	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Viggers, Peter	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Walter, Robert	Woodward, Shaun
Wardle, Charles	Yeo, Tim
Waterson, Nigel	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Webb, Steve
Wells, Bowen	Tellers for the Noes:
Whitney, Sir Raymond	Mrs. Eleanor Laing and
Whittingdale, John	Sir David Madel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 314,Noes 132.

Division No.128]	[12.3 am
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Coaker, Vernon
Ainsworth, Robert (CoV'try NE)	Coffey, Ms Ann
Allen, Graham	Cohen, Harry
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Coleman, lain
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Colman, Tony
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Connarty, Michael
Atkins, Charlotte	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Austin, John	Corbett, Robin
Banks, Tony	Corbyn, Jeremy
Barnes, Harry	Corston, Ms Jean
Battle, John	Cousins, Jim
Bayley, Hugh	Cranston, Ross
Beard, Nigel	Crausby, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Begg, Miss Anne	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S)
Bennett, Andrew F	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Benton, Joe	Dalyell, Tam
Best, Harold	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Blackman, Liz	Darvill, Keith
Blears, Ms Hazel	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Blizzard, Bob	Davidson, Ian
Borrow, David	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Dawson, Hilton
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Dean, Mrs Janet
Bradshaw, Ben	Denham, John
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Dismore, Andrew
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Dobbin, Jim
Browne, Desmond	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Buck, Ms Karen	Donohoe, Brian H
Burden, Richard	Doran, Frank
Burgon, Colin	Dowd, Jim
Butler, Mrs Christine	Drew, David
Cabom, Richard	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Edwards, Huw
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Efford, Clive
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Ellman. Mrs Louise
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Ennis, Jeff
Cann, Jamie	Etherington, Bill
Caplin, Ivor	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Casale, Roger	Fisher, Mark
Caton, Martin	Fitzsimons, Loma
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Flint, Caroline
Chaytor, David	Flynn, Paul
Clapham, Michael	Follett, Barbara
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Foulkes, George
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Fyfe, Maria
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Galloway, George
Clelland, David	Gardiner, Barry
Clwyd, Ann	George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Gerrard, Neil	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Gibson, Dr Ian	Lock, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Love, Andrew
Godman, Dr Norman A	McAllion, John
Godsiff, Roger	McAvoy, Thomas
Goggins, Paul	McCabe, Steve
Golding, Mrs Llin	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	McDonagh, Siobhain
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Macdonald, Calum
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McDonnell, John
Grogan, John	McFall, John
Hain, Peter	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	McNamara, Kevin
Hanson, David	MacShane, Denis
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	Mactaggart, Fiona
Healey, John	McWalter, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	McWilliam, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hepburn, Stephen	Mallaber, Judy
Heppell, John	Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Hesford, Stephen	Marek, Dr John
Hewitt, Ms Patricia	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hill, Keith	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hinchliffe, David	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hodge, Ms Margaret	Martlew, Eric
Hoey, Kate	Maxton, John
Home Robertson, John	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey	Meale, Alan
Hope, Phil	Merron, Gillian
Hopkins, Kelvin	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Miller, Andrew
Howells, Dr Kim	Mitchell, Austin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Humble, Mrs Joan	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hurst, Alan	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hutton, John	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Iddon, Dr Brian	Morley, Elliot
Illsley, Eric	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Mountford, Kali
Jackson. Helen (Hillsborough)	Mudie, George
Jamieson, David	Mullin, Chris
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
	Norris, Dan
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Helen (Warnington N)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	Olner, Bill
	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Palmer, Dr Nick
Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)	Pearson, Ian
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Pendry, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pickthall, Colin
Keeble, Ms Sally	Pike, Peter L
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Plaskitt, James
Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)	Pond, Chris
Kemp, Fraser	Pope, Greg
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Pound, Stephen
Khabra, Piara S	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kidney, David	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kiffoyle, Peter	Primarolo, Dawn
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Prosser, Gwyn
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Purchase, Ken
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Quinn, Lawrie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Radice, Giles
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Rammell, Bill
Laxton, Bob	Rapson, Syd
Lepper, David	Raynsford, Nick
Leslie, Christopher	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Levitt, Tom	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Rooney, Terry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee KO
Livingstone, Ken	Rowlands, Ted

Roy, Frank	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Ruane, Chris	Temple-Morris, Peter
Ruddock, Joan	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Ryan, Ms Joan	Timms, Stephen
Savidge, Malcolm	Tipping, Paddy
Sawford, Phil	Todd, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian	Touhig, Don
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Trickett, Jon
Singh, Marsha	Truswell, Paul
Skinner, Dennis	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Vaz, Keith
	Ward, Ms Claire
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Wareing, Robert N
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Watts, David
Soley, Clive	White, Brian
Squire, Ms Rachel	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Wicks, Malcolm
Steinberg, Gerry	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Stevenson, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Wills, Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul	Winnick, David
Stott, Roger	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin	Woolas, Phil
Stringer, Graham	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stuart, Ms Gisela	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Tellers for the Ayes:
	Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Clive Betts
Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Butterfill, John
Allan, Richard	Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Amess, David
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Atkinson, David (Bour'Mth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Chope, Christopher
Baker, Norman	Clappison, James
Ballard, Jackie	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Bercow, John	Collins, Tim
Blunt, Crispin	Gran, James
Boswell, Tim	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Brazier, Julian
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Day, Stephen
Browning, Mrs Angela	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Duncan, Alan
Burnett, John	Duncan Smith, lain
Burns, Simon	Faber, David
Burstow, Paul	Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, Michael	Ottaway, Richard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Page, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)	Paice, James
Fraser, Christopher	Prior, David
Garnier, Edward	Randall, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Gibb, Nick	Rendel, David
Gill, Christopher	Robathan, Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Gray, James	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Green, Damian	Ruffley, David
Greenway, John	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Grieve, Dominic	St Aubyn, Nick
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Sanders, Adrian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Hammond, Philip	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hayes, John	Spicer, Sir Michael
Heald, Oliver	Spring, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Steen, Anthony
Horam, John	Streeter, Gary
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Stunell, Andrew
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Jenkin, Bernard Robert	Tredinnick, David
Key,Robert,	Trend, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Tyrie, Andrew
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Viggers, Peter
Lansley, Andrew	Wallace, James
Leigh, Edward	Walter, Robert
Letwin, Oliver	Waterson, Nigel
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Webb, Steve
Lidington, David	Wells, Bowen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Whittingdale, John
Loughton, Tim	Wilkinson, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Willetts, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Willis, Phil
McLoughlin, Patrick	Wilshire, David
Malins, Humfrey	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mates, Michael	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis	Woodward, Shaun
May, Mrs Theresa	Yeo, Tim
Moore, Michael	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Moss, Malcolm
Nicholls, Patrick	Tellers for the Noes:
Oaten, Mark	Mrs.Eleanot Laing and
Öpik, Lembit	Sir David Madel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.